Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, there have been 1,099 executions in the United States as of April 2008. There were 42 executions in 2007.
The opinions this post will generate will probably vary widely. But, it will be interesting to hear the reasons behind the thoughts.
So, everybody, let's hear what you have to say!
58 comments:
Do you believe the death penalty is being carried out appropriately in this country? Do you believe that prosecutors can always be relied on to pursue the truth? I don't. And, that is what my opinion is based on. But, what do YOU think?
"Should the death penalty be abolished?" Absolutely not!
I think a good question would be, "Should Prosecutors Who Withhold Exculpatory Evidence Face Criminal Charges?"
There are corrupt attorneys out to make a name for themselves at any cost, even if it means putting the innocent in prison --- there needs to be accountability and retribution imposed on prosecutors who withhold evidence.
Brady v. Maryland was the Supreme Court case that made it illegal for prosecutors to withhold exculpatory evidence from defense attorneys. The problem is that there's rarely if ever any punishment for breaking the rule, even when it has led to wrongful convictions and imprisonment.
Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins says, "I couldn't give you five cases in the last 40 years of criminal charges against prosecutors."
The bottom line is JUSTICE FOR ALL. It is not justice that murderers and killers are sitting in prisons all over the country, while the blood of their victims is crying out vainly for justice. But your point is well taken, Linnette. I just think we need to, methodically and carefully review every single case and set the innocent free, then resolutely go after corrupt prosecutors.
O.J. Simpson was a great football player at USC and the NFL, but blood found at his home the night he murdered Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman was not good enough for a racially-influenced jury to free him from guilt and the death penalty. In the civil phase in Santa Monica, a jury not racially-influenced in which a cousin of ours served, O.J. was found guilty, but by hiding his assets Simpson's lawyers have protected him from paying hius dues. Simpson could have been completely wealthy today had he not been so totally jealous of his wife he could not bear to be without her. As a brutal football player, O. J. could have killed these two people with his hands, but instead he chose to use a dagger. He is considered so guilty of these two crimes that he is virtually banned from the USC campus and is starved for drugs. Unfortunately, had he been found guilty and received the death penalty there would have been another Watts Riot because of his heritage.
Henry
Henry, the OJ trial is a good example. The prosecutors in the OJ trial received the backlash from the African American community for all the injustices that have been done. They felt it was payback time.
There have been 216 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.
• Exonerations have been won in 32 states; since 2000, there have been 153 exonerations.
• Races of the 216 exonerees:
132 African Americans
59 Caucasians
19 Latinos
1 Asian American
5 whose race is unknown
The fact that 132 out of the 216 were African American says a lot about the injustice they feel.
When prosecutors are seen a criminal instead of honest and truth seeking, verdicts like those rendered in the OJ trial result.
Regarding the death penalty: I have a real hard time giving it up. I beleive that John Wayne Gacy, Jeffery Daumer and Richard Ramirez are such scum of the earth that they do not deserve to live.
I have a really hard time giving up the death penalty because there are so many dishonest prosecutors and cops (and I don't think we know half of it). But out of the 216 exonerated through DNA, 16 served time on death row. No telling how many more there are. But I still cling to some hope that the REAL problem could somehow be corrected instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. But that is probably never going to happen in this world of injustices. No telling how many innocent were executed before the DNA era or how many were executed in cases where no DNA was involved.
The JUSTICE system is NOT JUST. Lets fix it.
Henry, I'm re-reading you great comments here. I didn't quite understand "...he is virtually banned from the USC campus and is starved for drugs".
Did he get drugs from the USC campus? I'm not up on that.
John, "should prosecutors who withhold evidence face criminal charges", is a great question (personally I think they should be shot or hung. lol). There are other circumstances in which innocent people have been found guilty (false witnesses are 75% of the cases). There was a recent 60 Minutes (I think), the Texas District Attorney, Wade, never lost a case, but now all kinds of crooked dealings are being uncovered. Wade, is now deceased and there is a new DA who is reviewing all of Wades old cases. Some people in Texas are giving the new DA a hard time saying it’s a waste of time to review the old cases. Can you imagine anyone saying that, knowing there have been unjustices? The new DA isn’t budging, saying the purpose of the DA is to seek truth. “Don’t mess with Texas”, has a new meaning now.
Prosecutorial midconduct was a factor in 33 of the first 74 DNA exonerations.
Police misconduct was a factor in 37 of the first 74 DNA exonerations.
You can view it at, http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php
I vote for no death penalty.
Besides the fact the government should not have the power to kill, the death penalty phase cost too much, and it's too easy.
I vote for HARD labor with no perks. Period.
PERIOD.
I say don't abolish the death penalty. I think it's one function of government that's necessary, and a role that God himself assigned to government. Fix the system, do; abolish the death penalty, don't.
God assigned that role to the government? That's in the Bible?
Yes, and I will look it up for you. Also EGW.
Romans 13:1-5 Paul instructs Christians to submit themselves to the authority of the state, because "The authorities that exist have been established by God." Referring to the authorities, Paul writes in Verse 4: "For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
The reference to "sword" might be interpreted literally (to refer to capital punishment) or symbolically (to refer to the power of the state to punish wrongdoers).
I think there's a few others, but will provide later.
It's a hard call, I know, because the system is so corroupt! But if it were fixed - or wasn't corrupt, and justice prevailed in the majority of cases, then I would support the death penalty for the most heinous of crimes, for this reason: "It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life." --Edward Koch
Okay, just so I understand where you are coming from: Are you saying that if the Bible 'endorses' capital punishment, that our nation should do the same?
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
God intended that governments be formed on this earth to protect the rights of individuals (not the proliferation of phony rights, but of those rights given to us by God himself) but governments have strayed so far from their purpose that they've become more corrupt than the criminals they're supposed to restrain.
Stealing is a crime because it violates the rights of an individual. How do we know that? The Bible.
Fraud is a crime because it violates the rights of an individual. How do we know that? The Bible (thou shalt not bear false witness). We know which actions violate rights because the Bible tells us. Do you think men just sat down and figured it out for themselves?
That's how we got the Constitution, because we chose to follow the words of wisdom in the Bible; our founding fathers wrote the Constitution with divine help, not on their own. If this were not so, our original form of government (not the way we do it today, but when we've been most free) would not have worked. The only reason our government is so mixed up today -- and we have all these laws that control us rather than protect our rights -- is because the Constitution has been turned upside down on head, and we no longer appreciate the principles it was founded on. We're the generations that have "eaten" up the fruit produced by those who worked so hard to establish a government that was based on Biblical principles.
Well, first I cannot accept your premise that laws should be made based on Biblical principles. What about these ones: Do not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Do not covet thy neighbor’s wife. Give ten percent of your income to the church. Clothing should be modest. Honor thy father and mother. I’m sure we can all agree that these principles would be a good way to live. But, we do not base our laws on these. Of the ten commandments, only two are laws, stealing and killing. So, to begin with, in MY opinion, your premise is wrong. So, if the premise is wrong, then the rest of your argument may be flawed.
This is an interesting discussion. And, I have more to say. But, I have to go somewhere right now.
–To be continued.
No Linnette, those you mention -- Do not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Do not covet thy neighbor’s wife. Give ten percent of your income to the church. Clothing should be modest. Honor thy father and mother. -- Those do not violate any rights, they are morals to live by, which is a matter of the individual and God. In this way, government does not (or should not) interfere; it is a personal matter.
Lisa, so you believe we should submit to the authority of the state because "The authorities that exist have been established by God." Whoa, so that means we'd better not be complaining about our government anymore, especially if it has been established by God, right?
I know that stealing is a crime, but not because the Bible says so. There are people who have never read or believed in the Bible. The people who lived before the Bible was written knew that stealing was a crime.
This is really good. Each post I read, I think: "oh yeah, that makes sense" and then I read the next one and think: "oh, but that makes sense, too".
Repeat from Henry
What I tried to say is that O. J. Simpson is considered so quilt of these two murders that he is no longer received as a football hero for the Trojans. Hundreds of other football heroes can gather on the field of play to watch a game as a matter of tradition, but not O. J. All of this has led him into a serious drug problem instead of a successful lifetime career.
In addition, every piece of evidence proves no one else could have murdered Nicole and Ron that night.
In 1968 I was a news reporter covering a trial in which a drug addict coming out of a grocery store was confronted by a police officer whom he shot to death. But because the officer had his revolver drawn, the murderer got off with self defense and in his second trial got life in prison instead of death. This is the way laws work.
OK Henry. I see your point. OJ is as guilty as sin and I think everyone knows it. That's why he is not allowed on the campus with the team etc. He is a lost sole. Good points!
I would say that those are laws that are NOT working well. But, that story leaves me wondering. Why did the policeman have his gun drawn? Had the guy just robbed the grocery store?
And, there have been times where the police will suspect drugs and will raid a house in the middle of the night. The family members are awoken, startled by intruders, grab a gun to defend themselves and then are killed by the police. And, more than a few times, the police then discovered that they had raided the wrong house and killed innocent people. But, I don't hear of the police being prosecuted for those mistakes.
Cases like this and police brutality have created a us vs. them mentality.
Good comments and discussion.
Lisa, if the constitution was founded on Biblical principals why did the Senate unanimously ratified a treaty in 1797, that declared the United States government “is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” President John Adams, immediately signed it into law.
Lisa: The original principles on which America was founded were those of the old British Common Law or Natural Law. Natural Law comes from the very nature of man and consist of rights to liberty and property. British Common Law supports these rights, which can be broken down into two principles: "Do all you have agreed to do," and "Do not encroach on other persons or their property."
The first is the basis for contract law and the second for criminal law.
But, we might be meandering away from the main point.
--to be continued
I just do NOT have faith in our criminal justice system. There are many innocent people convicted. False confessions are forced and jailhouse snitches get shorter sentences for falsely testifying for the prosecutor. I can site many, many cases (Innocence Project). And, these are just the one we KNOW about. So, you that say it is the corrupt system that needs to be fixed, I agree one hundred percent. However, until that system IS fixed, how can we sentence someone to die for a crime they may not have committed? Nowadays when I hear of someone that just got sentenced to die for a crime, I say to myself, "I sure hope they are REALLY guilty." That shows how little credibility I place in the system.
Linnette, this post is not longer about the death penalty. You just can't come in here and change things. lol
Carol, in answer to your question, "Whoa, so that means we'd better not be complaining about our government anymore, especially if it has been established by God, right?", of course I don't mean that. God instituted civil authorities to maintain order, for the sake of protecting man's God-given rights, and for the sake of setting boundaries; God uses them to restrain evil, and they should be obeyed for this purpose.
But that doesn't mean that governments are good, or righteous, just that they're meant to serve the purpose of establishing order within a nation; when government enacts laws that PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL, then that nations laws are good; when it makes laws that violate those rights, then that country will begin its downward slope of corruption and degeneration, just as ours is doing.
Carol, you said, "I know that stealing is a crime, but not because the Bible says so. There are people who have never read or believed in the Bible. The people who lived before the Bible was written knew that stealing was a crime." Yes, even Adam and Eve knew that stealing was wrong, at their creation; they had a knowledge of the law of God, and its precepts were written upon their hearts. Just because the Ten Commandments can be read and studied from the Bible doesn't mean that they didn't exist before the Bible. When man sinned, the law was not changed, but a remedial system was established to bring him back to obedience. Adam taught his descendants the law of God, and it was handed down from father to son through successive generations. The law was preserved by Noah and his family, and Noah taught his descendants the Ten Commandments.
Genesis 9:5-6: "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by
shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
So the Ten Commandments, though not written in stone in the beginning, were written in the heart of men, after God told them to Adam and Eve. They were given to Adam, preserved by Noah, and observed by Abraham. The Bible simply reiterates what God made known to Adam and Even from the very beginning.
Carol,you said, "Lisa, if the constitution was founded on Biblical principals why did the Senate ratified a treaty in 1797, that declared the United States government “is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
The principles of the Bible are not religious, they are spiritual, so of course the United States government is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
Thomas Jefferson said, in a letter to the Danbury baptists, "religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions."
The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart.
It's 3:15 am, got to hit the hay, this is fun, I'll be back...
Chalk one up for Lisa.
You made my point Lisa. You said we know stealing is a crime because of the Bible and that we know which actions violate rights because of the Bible.
My exact quote was, “I know that stealing is a crime, but not because the Bible says so”.
...getting out my chalk...
Henry - Wow you were a reporter huh? That must have been exciting. I bet you have some stories to tell. Sorry we got off on a tangent here. But how do you stand on the death panalty?
More tangent but I have to make three points:
Lisa now agrees that we know things are wrong, but NOT because the Bible tells us so.
Lisa said our Constitution and our government was based on the Bible. I believe she is wrong about that.
Lisa you said: “government was established based on Biblical Principals”, to which I disagree. Yet you agreed with me that they are NOT founded on Christianity. But how you can separate the two because the Bible is based on Christianity. So if our government and Constitution was based on the Bible, they were based on Christianity. And we both agree that they are not founded on Christianity so my premise is that they cannot be based on the Bible either.
Will somebody shake and wake Lisa to and let her know it's her turn, please?
Funny Neisha. You want to get one started? I've got it ready for you?
Neisha says: "...the government should not have the power to kill".
Lisa says: "God assigned that role to government. Romans 13:1-5"
Now you two get in the ring. lol
Linnette, you said, "However, until that system IS fixed, how can we sentence someone to die for a crime they may not have committed? Nowadays when I hear of someone that just got sentenced to die for a crime, I say to myself, "I sure hope they are REALLY guilty."
I feel the same way! I think that's the problem with implementing capital punishment these days: Many prosecutors want to win at any cost, and some will withold evidence, or mislead the jury to believe evidence exists when it does not, and defense attorneys will do the same. When it comes to the death penalty, there are guidelines that are followed before a prisoner is sentenced to death. Of those, one of the most important reads: Capital punishment may be imposed only when guilt is determined by clear and convincing evidence, leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the fact (Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch 5-25-84). Another is that the death penalty is to be reserved for only the most heinous of crimes (premeditated vengeful killing or violent killing with anger and malice).
However, even though the possibility exists for the innocent to be executed unjustly, the alternative is far worse. If evil men are allowed to go unpunished, evil would eventually take over.
lol Neisha! I just replied to Linnette's question, and in the meantime, you guys were here talking about me. Now THAT is funny! You're a hoot!
Carol, even some of the specific laws here in the United States that determine guilt or innocence are also found in the Bible. Numbers 35:30-31: "Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be put to death."
I've got to go the bathroom. Back in a few.
I wonder why God did not use capital punishment when Cain killed Abel. Instead, he was exiled. And a mark was put on him as a warning to everyone else that they should not kill him either. "Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."
Lisa: You said, "However, even though the possibility exists for the innocent to be executed unjustly, the alternative is far worse."
What would be an acceptable figure? If one person in 1000 executions was really innocent, would that be okay? Or should we allow the system more room for error. How about one in 500? Better? How about one in 100? Okay, but we shouldn't go any higher than that. So, we can accept that in 100 executions, one of those people was innocent. It's just a chance we have to take.
Well, this is an interesting statistic:
For every eight executions (1099 since 1976), one other prisoner on death row has been found innocent.
The above statistic is about death row inmates. There are hundreds more found innocent that were not on death row, but serving life or very long terms.
...you guys...
Weigh in, Tavia!
Linnette, you said, "I wonder why God did not use capital punishment when Cain killed Abel. Instead, he was exiled. And a mark was put on him as a warning to everyone else that they should not kill him either. "Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."
I'm not sure why, but I imagine that it was because if he had killed Cain instantly, Adam's immediate family and the generations thereafter would not have seen the kind of life Cain led as a result of having committed the crime of murder. They would have begun to look upon God as severe and unforgiving; it might have led them to perceive God as a vindictive, harsh, exacting dictator. Maybe, since it was the first murder, and Cain was the first murderer, those living in that day, and those living since then, would have pictured God as a being who is watching with a jealous eye to discern the errors and mistakes of men, that He may show His power to destroy whomever crosses Him.
And also, maybe Cain showed some sorrow for what he had done, and God knew that the punishment given him – exilation – was punishment enough. Just a thought!
Regarding that last comment, the point you make is very thought-provoking. If it's true what you say - that "for every eight executions (1099 since 1976), one other prisoner on death row has been found innocent - then thank God they were found innocent. That's one neat thing about the system, is that even a person on death row can have his case reviewed one last time, if the powers that be permit. (Don't quote me, I'm not sure how it works, but I'm assuming that some were found innocent, they were given another chance to prove it.
Linnette, you asked, "What would be an acceptable figure? If one person in 1000 executions was really innocent, would that be okay? Or should we allow the system more room for error. How about one in 500? Better? How about one in 100? Okay, but we shouldn't go any higher than that. So, we can accept that in 100 executions, one of those people was innocent. It's just a chance we have to take."
The people sitting on a jury do not KNOW FOR A FACT that the person they convict is guilty; they can only weigh the evidence presented to them and decide guilty or not guilty based upon what has been proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty. There's ALWAYS going to be the possibility that the jurors make a mistake and wrongly convict someone, but that doesn't mean that the system doesn't work; no system is perfect, just as no man is perfect.
So, I can only repeat what I said earlier: Even though the possibility exists for the innocent to be executed unjustly, the alternative is far worse.
OK, I really don't have time to be doing this, but I couldn't resist responsing to one more comment, which Carol made. She said, "Lisa now agrees that we know things are wrong, but NOT because the Bible tells us so."
If I had known this discussion was going get this technical, I would have attempted to use more precise wording. Hopefully this is "technical" enough for you: The Bible is simply the WORD OF GOD in tangible form. The word of God has always existed, and always will exist, but God inspired holy men to write the word of God on paper, so that future generations could know and understand Him. Because sin separates man from God, He attempted to connect man with Himself by giving us the Bible.
So what, exactly, is the Bible? The word of God. And it's the word of God that I was using as a reference, otherwise, I could have quoted from the Catholic bible, etc., if you want to get technical...
“I personally believe, that U.S. Americans,
are unable to do so,
because uh,
some, people out there, in our nation don’t have maps.
and uh…
I believe that our education like such as in South Africa,
and the Iraq,
everywhere like such as…
and, I believe they should uh,
our education over here,
in the U.S. should help the U.S.
or should help South Africa,
and should help the Iraq and Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future,
for us.”
Carol, now THAT is phunny. Yew cwack me up, gurlfwend.
Lisa says that God appointed the government...which government?
I don't think ANY government of today is what God had in mind IF he did in fact appoint the government to administer the death penalty. Lisa hasn't really shown evidence of that yet.
Okay, I guess we're done with this topic. Next.
Lisa?
What I said was, "I say don't abolish the death penalty. I think it's one function of government that's necessary, and a role that God himself assigned to government. Fix the system, do; abolish the death penalty, don't."
Which government? Any earthly government! Paul said, "For he (government) is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
But don't get the meaning construed: That's what government SHOULD be like, but of course it's not, just as none of us are what we should be like.
One more thing, then I'm calling it a day on this subject: I'm only going on where the idea of capital punishment came from in the first place (the Bible, or to be "technical", the word of God).
Many of our laws have their origination from the Bible, like I said before. Numbers 35:30-31: "Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be put to death."
There are plenty others, but does anyone really care?
So, if I don't see any of you tomorrow, good morning, good afternoon, and good night! lololl!
It matters to me if Lisa's correct and God did appoint the government to give the death penalty. If He did, then I think the same as Lisa, fix the system and keep the death penalty.
That doesn't mean I think the government should go by the Bible, it just means I'd be for the death penalty.
CAROL
Yes, I was the sports editor for the South Bay Daily Breeze and Torrance Press-Herald ion the 50s and 60s, but I considered myself bad luck. I met John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, George Wallace, and Ronald Reagan......and they were all shot!
When a crime is in progress I prefer that the criminals be shot on the spot rather than have the government spend millions defending the guilty bastards.
I also believe most of the 54 comments on this subject of capitol punishment is a waste of time.
Uncle Henry
well!
South Bay Henry? I just went to the South Bay Daily Breeze and Torrance Press-Herald online. LA area coverage, pretty newsy (that man (age 86) who drove into that Farmers Market in Santa Monica case being settled for 6 million). Anyway how did you meet Ronald Reagan, G Wallace and the Kennedy’s while covering sports? Did you talk to Reagan or John Kennedy at all? Do tell.
So you prefer vigilante justice over due process? I can understand, governments are so ineffective. Or were you kidding. I agree with you about most of the 54 comments (except yours and mine of course Henry).
Neisha, I gave you verses from the Bible confirming that the death penalty is supposed to be one of the functions of government, so unless you disagree with the meaning of the verses, what other evidence could you possibly need?
Before governments established this practice, the idea of capital punishment was first instigated by God in the Old Testament in the Bible.
Genesis 9:5-6: "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
Numbers 35:30-31: "Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death."
Leviticus 24:17-22: "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.
18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.
19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.
22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God."
Many of our laws, especially those having to do with determining a man's guilt or innocence, and the court system, are based on biblical principles. In fact, they were founded by our forefathers, many of whom read and obeyed the word of God. Chapters 21, 22 and 23 in the book of Exodus and Numbers 35:15-34 is a good place to start. In reading these chapters you will note that God made a distinction between the penalties for manslaughter (usually killing in self defense or by accident without malice) and murder (premeditated vengeful killing or violent killing with anger and malice). Our courts require that a murderer can only be convicted if there is sufficient evidence and witnesses to the crime. This too, comes from the Bible.
Under our government mandates, the use of the death penalty, as intended by law, is to reduce the number of violent murders by eliminating some of the repeat offenders; so, not only is it being used as a method of deterrence, but also as a system of justice.
The Declaration of Independence alone testifies to God's design for government; consider some of these excerpts:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
"In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes. 'Tis a form of government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it."
"But where says some is the king of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare…
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Lisa, you obviously know what you're talking about. And I'm not disagreeing because I don't know enough about it either way. The quotes you gave seem to say if you do it to someone else, it'll happen to you. But it doesn't seem to say (as far as I can tell) that it is authorizing the government to do it to you.
Maybe the Bible is just stating that if you kill, in the end, you'll be killed.
He does say:
"Do not take revenge, dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath. For it is written, "Vengeance belongs to me. I will pay them back, declares the Lord." Romans 12:19
So, I don't know.
Just think if the government killed someone that would have repented and given his heart to God and be saved. I think about that....is that dumb rationale?
Post a Comment