Saturday, July 16, 2005

 

Mail Day

Our friend, Throat Deep, offers these comments on my posting the other day on capital punishment:

Great commentary on capital punishment. All too often, the conservative evangelical Christian's logic on capital punishment is stupefying. What we are really telling society is that we would rather dispose of the murderer than rehabilitate. That he is beyond society's help. Thank God that Jesus Christ did not have that attitude with the human race. Let God be the sole ultimate authority on the disposal of life. Capital punishment does nothing but fulfills the base human instinct of bloodlust, and weakens society's value of life.

Thanks, TD. Isn't it funny how so many self-professed Christians never seem to ask the WWJD question?


Frequent reader and infrequent sleeper Brian M. went on quite a letter-writing binge in the wee hours of this morning. Unlike the average right-wing pundit, I'm an equal-time kinda guy, so I'm going to let him have his say today. He had this to say about l'affaire Rove.

O.k., lets get this right, shall we? You say in your blog that Pres. Bush said that he would fire anyone who was involved in a leak, and then you directly quote him as saying he would "take care of" anyone who "violated the law." The next time you speak for the President, please be sure to use his words, and not yours...

Yes, indeed, let's get this right. I said the Bush administration vowed to fire the leaker, not President Bush, himself. To support that, I quoted Scott McClellan who said, "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."


Brian M. writes on my quote from Grover Norquist who likens bipartisanship to date rape:


You know, I have to say, if you think about it, that is quite a acute statement. For quite a while what seems like a minority of us conservatives have been warning Pres. Bush not to "get in bed" with you dems. Bush, being the conciliatory and warm hearted person he is, assumes that you dems are o.k. (which, on a personal level, many of you are), and that if he just opens himself up to you, and spends some time getting to know you (date), then you'll be reasonable and we can work together despite our differences. But alas, time after time our President has asked you Dems in for a nightcap only to be raped. President Bush, hear this clearly, "When it comes to politics, Dems are not your friends!"


I give President Bush lots of credit this week for his bipartisan solicitation of input into whom he should nominate to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. I hope it results in a candidate who pleases reasonable Americans. But prior to this week, please give me one example of an attempt Bush made to reach consensus with opponents in a gentlemanly way, instead of his usual means of running them over with his bulldozer approach - an approach that doesn't seem to be working too well these days.



Brian M. responded to my quoting of Rush Limbaush, who said that Christian liberals hate God:


Hmm...well, if this is an accurate quote, (and, I actually doubt that it is, since Rush seldom discusses anything concerning religion) I'll have to disagree with Rush. Although, while there are Christians on the left, it is a comfortable HOME of those who despise Jesus Christ.






The Mouth doesn't make up quotes; right-wingers ensure that I never need to. Now, who exactly are these people who you say despise Jesus Christ? What did they do, disagree with you and James Dobson?


A second letter on religion addresses my thoughts on capital punishment:

Concerning your comments on the death penalty...yes, there are problems with the execution (no pun intended) of the death penalty. However, lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. The death penalty, instituted by the God of the old and new testament for the Isrealites, is not only an instrument of order, but of justice. While I'll agree with you that justice is not, and will not be perfectly just in this world, God has set forth those in authority (governments) to establish order and justice on this earth (Romans 13:1), and, according to the NEW testament, carry out that justice with the SWORD. I'll include the actual text here for the benefit of our nonchristian friends:Romans 13:4"But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he [the government]does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."So, there is your one verse justifying capital punishment. AND, I have to say, that I did not see any argument against capital punishment in the verses you included. If you'll be more specific, I'll be glad to address the passages. For instance, I'm guessing that you're arguing that Jesus was against the death penalty because he sent away the guys wanting to stone the prostitute. However, an understanding of Hebrew law shows this not to be the case (and the fact that Jesus did not tell them not to prosecute the girl, but rather disqualified them as judges). The law of Moses reqired two or more witnesses for someone to be put to death, (Deut 17:6; 19:15; Matt 18:16; John 7:51; 8:17,18) and, by this account, there were no witnesses.(By the way, I am against cap. punishment on the basis of circumstantial evidence or on the basis of one witness) Further, because the stoners had not brought the male adulterer (death for both participants was mandated for adultery (Lev 20:10, and Det 22:22)), the woman could not legally be stoned, even if she did have two or more witnesses, and this also showed the stoners true intent of trying to trap Jesus.

You make very good points. Regarding Romans 13, is this sword to be taken that literally as a means of capital punishment or is it symbolic merely of punishment? As for your interpretation of Jesus and the prostitute spared by the stone, do you really think this story is included in the Bible to merely illustrate some technical point of law? I think Jesus had a much a larger picture in mind, and I don't really see Jesus as a legal nitpicker.


Brian M. also is shocked and dismayed that I dislike President Bush:

What a sad, sad commentary for you, Mouth, that you have such disdain for what may be the most God fearing President of the 20th and 21st Century. I really think you need to examine your heart on this! I've seen absolutely no proof, or even evidence that suggest that President Bush has ever lied or played loose with the truth. Rather, he has been a man of his word, sometimes even to the dismay of some Republicans. Pres. Bush means what he says, and he says what he means (in quite a stark contrast to Clinton).

You criticize Republicans for calling Clinton a liar, but, the difference is, that Clinton IS a liar! Even Dems in congress marveled at how he constantly lied with such ease, and, we also know that he lied UNDER OATH!I really think that you bitter, bitter hatred for Pres. Bush, Tom Delay, Carl Rove, or anyone else who progresses the policies of the Republican party is just..well, sour grapes. You still think that somehow the election was stolen from you in 2000, and you're still shell shocked that, with the strongest push libs have ever even conceived, you lost again to Pres. Bush in 2004. Man, and..I can't imagine how much every thing inside you must scream out at the thought of us conservatives placing up to 3 Supreme Court nominees on the bench!Ease up Mouth! You may hate Bush's policies, and all the things us conservatives are doing, but just like you, he's a good guy, just staring down a different pair of spectacles.

Yikes. That must have been very cathartic.

I'm sorry you're so outraged at the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll numbers, which find that a plurality of Americans think the president isn't being very truthful. But why are you attacking me? I even went out of my way to state my opposition against calling the president a liar. I'm even on record on this blog stating strong dislike for President Clinton. Instead, you should direct your anger at the average American, who apparently doesn't mind calling Bush a liar.

I've noticed that it's 1:30 a.m. as you write this. I'm sure the late hour is just making you cranky.

Comments:
"You make very good points. Regarding Romans 13, is this sword to be taken that literally as a means of capital punishment or is it symbolic merely of punishment?"

Since capital punishment, a form of punishment instituted by GOD, (whose logic fellow SCM reader Throat Deep thinks is "stupefying,") was the God sanctioned and instituted law of the day for the Jewish people when the Apostle Paul wrote Romans, and since the secular government of the time also sanctioned capital punishment, yes, you must include capital punishment in Pauls use of the word "sword" here.

"As for your interpretation of Jesus and the prostitute spared by the stone, do you really think this story is included in the Bible to merely illustrate some technical point of law? I think Jesus had a much a larger picture in mind, and I don't really see Jesus as a legal nitpicker."

No, I don't think the story is used to illustrate a technical point of law, but I think that law was fully evident in the mind of the writer, and of his audience at the time (most of which had the law memorized), which negates the possibility of this account being told for the purpose of doing away with capital punishment.
 
I guess this takes us back around to whether you believe the Hebrew law of the Old Testament applies.

If you're judging Paul's feelings on the old Hebrew law, let me refer you back to Galatians 3:23-25.

Paul says, "Before the faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law."

If you want to know Christ's feelings on the law, read Matthew 5.

Look at Acts 10:19 in which God commands Peter to eat food judged impure in the old Hebrew law. I've noticed that most literalist evangelicals aren't so caught up in the Old Testament that they're willing to give up their bacon and barbecue.

So, I'll have to continue disagreeing if you insist that the Hebrew law provides justification for our continued reliance on cpaital punishment.

Regards,
The Mouth
 
In response to Brian M's remark of capital punishment being instituted by God - I would say that so was the execution of homosexuals, liars under oath, and the sacrifice of animals to him. So does that make it right under today's time ? NO !!!! All became non-appliant after Christ's death for us on the cross. It must be read in the context of the times of when the bible was written. I also disagree that the story about the stoning of the prostetute had anything to do with Jesus OK'ing a legal judge being able to execute the women. This is a major stretch of logic. Nowhere does it mention anything in the passage or context about a judge. If one uses logic and understand the context of the passage, it was written about mercy and forgiveness and that the taking of life is God's domain, not humans. "but I think that law was fully evident in the mind of the writer, and of his audience at the time (most of which had the law memorized), which negates the possibility of this account being told for the purpose of doing away with capital punishment." - Lord knows the Jews never had an incorrect interpretation of the law. I think that was one of the things Jesus was trying to correct with the passage here. Remove the written law and replace it with the heart of the law.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?