Kill 'Em All, It's Okay with God

Hate is the new buzzword.

Unfortunately, I think you are correct Sharon.

I don't know, it sounds like a fine way to run a religion. Tell me Em Jay, are you a Charlesian? Because if you are, I'll smite your enemies for you. Up to a point.

Charles, I am a proud Pastafarian. (Pirate as the FSM intended, not a Ninja as the Alfredos would have it.) Thank you for the smiting offer.

I continue to be fascinated by the christians obssession with the Old Testament. As Lewis Black said, "did God attend anger management classes or did having a son mellow him out"?  Sadly, most christians have only what I call a "Vacation Bible School" understanding of Scriptures and THAT is dangerous!

"Sadly, most christians have only what I call a "Vacation Bible School" understanding of Scriptures and THAT is dangerous!"

Exactly, Spartan. 

While there are benefits to the decline of denominational identification in America (there was a time when Methodists and Baptists were serious theological rivals), the result has been that no one learns systematic theology of any kind.

Most "evangelicals" learn only how to find Bible verses to shout at one another.

And this is exactly the point SBC minister and teacher Michael Spencer talks about on his Internetmonk.com blog. He's convinced that the involvement in the "culture war" and the shallow, proof-text approach to the Bible is killing evangelicalism. His 3-part series The Coming Evangelical Collapse has created quite a stir in Christian circles even outside of the evangelical circle (and you can imagine the stir it caused there!), but his whole blog is well worth reading and keeping up with, especially his writings on a Jesus-shaped spirituality.

Let me preface my comment with the fact that my brother is serving in Afghanistan. 

If less than one percent of Muslims are radical, that's still millions of people who want to kill other people because they consider them infidels.  While I don't question that most Muslims are good people, not enough speak out against the radicals.

I don't personally know one Christian who condones the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Personally, I think that we live in a different world after 9/11.  We have a First Amendment right to free speech, but we can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.

I'd like to see hate speech banned, especially when harm or violence is advocated against any group of people.

If you can't threaten me, as a person.  You should be able to threaten me as a member of a particular group.  Which I believe is wrong.

Someone can't say I'm going to kill Megan.  It's a crime.  So why can they say I'm going to kill all Jews or African-Americans?

I think the First Amendment has been construed too liberally in the past.  You should not be able to preach hatred against any group of people.  It's time we recognize this.

Actually, I was watching "COPS" the other day and apparently, it isn't illegal to threaten to kill someone. The woman on there was freaking out as the officer explained to her it wasn't illegal for her ex to threaten to kill their son.

Is Wiley Drake using a bible to fuel hate speech? If so, should the book be edited to take out the hate-filled passages?

"... it wasn't illegal for her ex to threaten to kill their son."

That would only be if he didn't really mean it.  Family members often say, "I'm going to kill you."  But I'm pretty sure that if you say "I'm going to kill you" to a stranger you have committed a crime.

How do you tell if someone "means it" or not?

The woman on "COPS" asked if something had to happen before the police would intervene, and the police officer replied yes to that.

That's why restraining orders are useless. The person you want to keep away has to go against it before the law will intervene.

The only purpose restraining orders have are to provide documentation of the basis for a complaint....they do nothing in terms of protection but do explicitly lay out that this person has been warned to stay away in the event of a court case. Unfortunately, all too often that means that the complainant is attacked or killed...but the restraining order DOES point the way to the likeliest perpetrator.

EM Jay - about 8 years ago I was at a Diversity dinner here in Lakewood and my table was all lesbians.  The local Iman and his wife and baby sat down at our table.  We were all having a good time, but I decided to tell him that he was at a table with lesbians did that bother him?  He asked if we were Muslims and I told him no.  He said as long as we weren't Muslim it didn't bother him at all.

Could have wiped me up off the floor.

He didn't worry about it because you're all going to hell anyway, Momma. Save you a seat on the bus? ;-)

Wow.  I haven't heard about this man before.  Surely the members of this church don't agree with this man.

That he has a church indicates that there are followers who believe what he says, otherwise he'd have been replaced. The Southern Baptists I grew up around had a tendancy to keep a preacher until he said something the majority of the congregation didn't like.

I think what it notable here is that even though one's first sarcastic thought might be "What good is a religion if you don't get to put curses on people?", the majority of Christians today disagree with Wiley Drake and reject prayer of this kind.

(Gotta love the guy's name though.)

Maybe he is Wiley Coyote in a duck suit.

And he's yelling it's wabbit season!

Megan, I do personally know Christains who think the gunman is a hero.

I'm not sure which gunman you're talking about.  But if there's more that 3 billion people on this planet, then it stands to reason that there are millions who are paranoid and delusional and agree with the twisted murders of Dr. Tiller, Private Long and Officer Johns.

I assume that you're talking about Dr. Tiller's deranged gunman, so I'll address that particular one.   Not just as a Catholic, but as a person, I found what Dr. Tiller did was abhorrent.  And recent polls found that almost 3 out of 4 Americans were disgusted with partial birth abortion.

That being said, he was murdered in cold blood in a house of worship.  His murder was cruel and unjust.  But he should not be made to be a martyr.

Okay, it's a little unnerving that we have so many shooters out there now that there is some doubt as to which one is being referred to. (I believe Dorthy is referring to the Tiller shooter.)

And we probably all know at least one person who won't say it aloud, but is thanking their god for the death of that doctor.

I think that shooting Dr. Tiller was a heinous act.  But I also believe that Dr. Tiller's performing late-term abortions was also heinous.

I am Catholic, but my beliefs on abortion and the death penalty are inherent beliefs.  I don't think that anyone has the right to take another's life, except maybe under extraordinary circumstances.

Believe me when I tell you, any woman who has to consider an abortion has not made the decision lightly. It is not up to any of us to make decisions for people we don't know, nor to block their legal options.

Also, you used the phrase "partial birth abortion." There is no such medical procedure. That phrase was invented by the Anti-Choice Movement. An abortion is just that, no matter how far along the pregnancy.

"An abortion is just that, no matter how far along the pregnancy."

I also referred to it as a "late term abortion".  Regardless, aborting a viable fetus is a heinous act, no matter how you want to call it.

Many states have laws protecting viable fetuses from violence, that's why Scott Peterson was charged with double homocide for killing his pregnant wife.

And that's why most Americans strongly oppose late-term abortions.

In the late term abortion scenario, something is very wrong with the fetus. It is not viable, has died, or is so damaged there would be no quality of life. Women do not make the decision to terminate at that stage on a whim.

"In the late term abortion scenario, something is very wrong with the fetus. It is not viable, has died, or is so damaged there would be no quality of life."

It is well known that Dr. Tiller aborted children because they had Down syndrome.  In fact, the Huffington Post praised Dr. Tiller for aborting children with Down syndrome.  Anyone who agrees with killing a child because the child has Down syndrome is totally void of compassion and anti-social.

I sincerely hope that you don't think it's alright to kill children because they're not "perfect".

It was not my choice to make. Some people cannot handle the challege of raising a Down Syndrome child. I'm not sure I could, and I'm glad I'm not in the position to have to make a decision about that.

Since medical records are private, we don't know all the circumstances and I'm not making any judgements on how strangers decided to handle their private lives in that respect. It's none of my business. If they brought a child with a handicap into the world and left it on the curb and said they didn't want it, then I could make a judgement about them.

Megan,

I agree with you 100%.  There are left-wing radicals who are so discompassionate that they believe it's alright to kill children with Down syndrome.

I believe it's the new Holocaust.  Americans should be ashamed of themselves for thinking it's OK to kill a child because the child is disabled.

The Huffington Post is a hateful, radical site and you should avoid it.  All they're doing is promoting genocide against a group of people who who have never done anything to anyone.

"Anyone who agrees with killing a child because the child has Down syndrome is totally void of compassion and anti-social."

Certainly. I would say it's wrong to kill a child for any reason, including if it has a condition that will lead to its death very soon, and even if it endangers its mother's life at the same time.

Which is why there's a difference between killing a child that has been born, and aborting a pregnancy. Thinking of abortion as "killing a child", if consistently done, will lead to absurd and cruel decisions that will require continuing pregnancies that will end with the death of both the mother and the fetus, or pregnancies that will end with the death of the fetus and make the mother unable to have another child, ever.

This is not to say that aborting a pregnancy is without any moral significance, or should be undertaken lightly. (It rarely is.) But the dynamics of the ethical choice is very different, and it will remain different, no matter how many times you refer to abortion as "killing a child".

Killing a viable fetus because the fetus has Down syndrome is just like killing a child.

Birth is not a prerequisite to personhood under the U.S. Constitution.  In fact we have laws protecting the unborn from violent acts.

We should protect children who have Down syndrome from being killed, just because they have Down syndrome.

There is no agreement on where viability starts, unfortunately. You can call 21 weeks viable because in rare cases it is possible to keep the fetus alive with advanced technology, but that child will almost always have severe disabilities. In other words, viability will not be helpful in determining cut-off points. You'd be better off setting an arbitrary gestational age.

I share your desire to protect children with Down syndrome (I think their parents should get benefits so they can take care of them, and I think we should all ensure, by paying taxes, their access to health and educational programs that they need to lead fulfilling lives), but if killing a "viable fetus" is killing a child, then it is always so, not only if the fetus has Down syndrome. It is so whatever the reason is. Risk to mother's life, condition ultimately incompatible with life, anything.

"Birth is not a prerequisite to personhood under the U.S. Constitution.  In fact we have laws protecting the unborn from violent acts."

Stan Marsh is using the same misleading language that abounds in the "pro-life" movement.

The Consititution does not include any reference to birth and "personhood" -  anti-abortion fanatics are desperately hoping for a Supreme Court declaration that it does.

They claim an argument from omission -if the Constitution protects the rights of "persons", then the unborn child has these rights, because the life of the "person" is not noted specifically to begin at birth.

Likewise, the legal protection of the fetus is applicable only when criminal activity destroys the fetus.  The rabid right has tried many times unsuccessfully to apply this law to abortion - but fetus-protection cannot over-ride the constitutional protection of abortion. 

Humans are expert at shirking responsibility for their own actions and thoughts and handing it all over to the  one and only god~whichever one that may be~

Humans are awesome at reinterpreting EVERYTHING under the sun to fit their own pigeonholes~

organized religion makes me shiver~

unquestioning zombified sheeple who flock to questionable doctrines scare the f*** out of me~

I choose the path of the *failing* Buddhist

Namaste =)

"unquestioning zombified sheeple who flock to questionable doctrines scare the f*** out of me~"

Mee too.  But it's not just religion.  People are also blindly following liberal and conservative movements.  Anyone who blindly follows one political philosophy, without question it, is acting like a sheep.

Thank you for posting to GutterGirls~

EM JAY: from your Theopedia link: Imprecatory Psalms "...merely were stating what would happen to the wicked; they were not actually asking God to destroy the wicked."

Regarding the verses you quoted from Psalm 69, here is an excerpt from Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Bible:

-----

These are prophecies of the destruction of Christ's persecutors. Verses #(22, 23) are applied to the judgments of God upon the unbelieving Jews, in Romans 11:9, 10. When the supports of life and delights of sense, through the corruption of our nature, are made the food and fuel of sin, then our table is a snare. Their sin was, that they would not see, but shut their eyes against the light, loving darkness rather; their punishment was, that they should not see, but should be given up to their own hearts' lusts which hardened them.

Those who reject God's great salvation proffered to them, may justly fear that his indignation will be poured out upon them. If men will sin, the Lord will reckon for it. But those that have multiplied to sin, may yet find mercy, through the righteousness of the Mediator. God shuts not out any from that righteousness; the gospel excludes none who do not, by unbelief, shut themselves out. But those who are proud and self-willed, so that they will not come in to God's righteousness, shall have their doom accordingly; they themselves decide it.

Let those not expect any benefit thereby, who are not glad to be beholden to it. It is better to be poor and sorrowful, with the blessing of the Lord, than rich and jovial, and under his curse. This may be applied to Christ. He was, when on earth, a man of sorrows that had not where to lay his head; but God exalted him. Let us call upon the Lord, and though poor and sorrowful, guilty and defiled, his salvation will set us up on high.

-----

Romans 11:9-10 (mentioned in the foregoing commentary) directly quotes Psalm 69:22-23. Excerpting from the commentary on the Romans passage: "David, having by the Spirit foretold the sufferings of Christ from his own people, the Jews, foretells the dreadful judgments of God upon them for it, Ps 69. This teaches us how to understand other prayers of David against his enemies; they are prophecies of the judgments of God, not expressions of his own anger."

Yeah, Dave, that's an explanaton--but there are others.

It's hard to miss that throughout the history of cultures and religions (as large, developing units, not as specific modern denominations), every single one has had a concept of curses--of appealing to deities or other supernatural entities for harm to be done to one's enemies.

That simply means, of course, that this is part of human nature.

There's another interpretation that I don't like as much that says that the concept of God moved from the concept of a tribal god to a universal God 'round about the end of the OT. The commentary I quoted from is consonant (along with many other aspects of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection) with Jesus' statement (in Mt. 5:17) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Yes, and I admit that interpretation is almost inescapable to me, looking at it from the outside and in the context of world history. The similarity of the God of the OT with (other) tribal gods is hard to miss.

Secular concepts of justice in 1000 BCE and later were undergoing change and development as was Jewish law. One could make an argument that they aided and abetted each other. In fact I will do that in a thread somewhere, some time!

Absolutely. That's exactly what I'm saying--that there's development there.

An example that I may have mentioned (not part of this passage) is the "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" rule, which is usually cited as an example of brutality; yet it incorporated the concept of proportionality into justice. 

But later Jesus said (Mt. 5:38-39): "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

I wonder which of these rules would win out if put to a vote on Gather.

Oh, people will vote for Jesus's version. In theory.

Actually not retaliating (let alone turning the other cheek) is a different matter.

Eye for an eye goes back to Hamurabi, predating the Old Testament. These days we're not going to demand partial blindness if someone pokes out one of our eyes, we're going to demand a cash settlement.

There are times when turning the other cheek will only get you another smack. There's a time to be passive and a time to resist and/or stand up and fight.

(Yes, I was taking it all literally.)

There's also another interpretation for the "other cheek" and if I get time later I'll come back. Boys packing for mission trip--woo hooo! 

Dave A, thanks for offering the theological framework through which most Christians understand the imprecatory Psalms.

There is no inherent contradiction to this and to a belief in the "Development of Doctrine" which is a recognition that human history and experience are sources of 'revelation', too.

Thanks, Lord Peter (I think you disconnected me once for using your proper name, Lord Peter, but I have to, your Lordship). Development was accomplished by humankind, which included the contributions of secular and religious influences. The values which overarch religious as well as secular understandings of justice, and even personhood, have found expression in laws and mores, which form an interwoven march (and sometimes retreat) through history.

EM JAY, I'm sorry that some Christians have given you a hard time, and said the stupid things that you've quoted them as saying above. (I'm Christian, and some Christians have given me a hard time as well.) Although I'm not a bible scholar, my purpose for dropping by was to expand a bit on the interpretation of those verses.   -  all the best to you  -

Hi Dave. Glad you found some points to chew on here. Christians are so fractured by denominations and interpretations, I don't believe the lable "Christian" is one size fits all. I grew up around Southern Baptists and that's a HUGE reason I don't live in that area any more.

If you look at the definition of imprecatory prayers (or psalms) and the way Drake is promoting this kind of thought, I would say he's a hateful person and needs to have his soapbox kicked out from under him. He is the same as any radical Isalmic shouting, "Death to America" and basing that cry in the Koran's verses.

Yes. Christianity doesn't especially need another blowhard with perverse views to make it look bad. Frankly, Islam did not need OBL either.

... we all need to get over ourselves!

.

You took the words right out of my mouth, EM JAY. And that was a lot of words!

The fulfilment of the law, which Jesus was referring to, was...LOVE!  Not fear, ritual, revenge, etc..., it was LOVE!

Yes, there are left-wing nuts, radical extremists, and right-wing nut radical exremeists.  Take out the left wing, and the right wing political aspects of it, and what is left is that they are NUTS, KOOKS. 

 We are all basing our discussion of many a subject from the premise set by these wack-jobs. The subject of abortion, for example will make no headway one way or another, as long as we work within the premis set by nut-cases on both sides.

Abortion is a symptom, not of the end times, but a symptom of other things wrong, or lacking. 

Education, poverty, ignorance, desperation, isolation, abuse, etc...Resolving more of these types of things could reduce the situations whereby a person might find themselves resorting to abortion, much less actually following through on it.

Dorothy,

We need to try and answer the age-old question of "When does life begin?"

I believe that life begins when the fetus has a heart beat and brain activity, which is somewhere between 8 and 10 weeks.

Some may argue that life begins when the fetus is "viable".  Children have survived born as early as 22 weeks.

I will never accept that life does not begin until birth.  And I don't believe that average person believes this.

"We need to try and answer the age-old question"

No we don't. The Supreme Court already decided. You're free to wrack your brains as long as you'd like.

"Abortion is a symptom, not of the end times, but a symptom of other things wrong, or lacking. 

Education, poverty, ignorance, desperation, isolation, abuse, etc...Resolving more of these types of things could reduce the situations whereby a person might find themselves resorting to abortion..."

Precisely, Dorothy.  An excellent response.

And it is the place that everyone can join in the effort to reduce abortions.

The invitation of Obama to Notre Dame illustrated this very well.  there can be cooperation without perfect agreement.

"No we don't. The Supreme Court already decided. You're free to wrack your brains as long as you'd like."

WTF are you talking about?   What decision are you talking about?  Please tell me it's not Roe v. Wade?

And what if the Supreme Court never heard new cases with regard to equality, but always referred back to Brown v. Board of Ed.?

Aborting a viable fetus because the fetus has Down syndrome is monstrous.  And anyone who thinks it's alright is a cruel and evil person.

"" Aborting a viable fetus because the fetus has Down syndrome is monstrous.  And anyone who thinks it's alright is a cruel and evil person. ""

Are YOU such a nice and decent upstanding religious type that you would promise to adopt and lovingly care for such a child ... put up or shut up !

If all those who are so against abortion would step up and adopt one child, sight unseen, regardless of health, race, or background, they would not have time to be up in other peoples' business.

We have adopted two children with health problems, EM JAY. It was not related to our position of abortion.

Except, of course, what a whole lot of tribal fables and fairy tales that man has used to control the ill informed tells them. If most Christians ever bothered to research the origins of the Jewish and Christian religions, and how they historically developed, how what was included was included, and what wasn't came to be discarded, and why, there would be a lot fewer Christians in this world, the same for Muslims, probably most religions. Hangovers from a barbaric age.

That's sort of what started this discussion. The fact that there are verses of murderous intent in the holy books and their interpretation in today's world.

Some things, I guess we haven't evolved past.

"Hangovers from a barbaric age."

Unlike, say, the 20th century, with 100 million or so innocents butchered by a few "advanced," "safely" non-religious leaders. Of course we have the nascent 21st century to cheer us up, with the "safely" non-religious leaders of China and its hegemony over the freedoms of its people and butchery among dissenters, or the "safely" non-religious leaders of N. Korea, with its nuclear tests and sabre-rattling. Yeah, things have sure gotten better for humankind since ditching religion came into vogue. So "advanced," so "evolved."

I don't believe it's the lack of religion in N. Korean. The leaders there just feel they don't need any kind of "permission" from a "higher power" to push their adgenda of greed and narcissism.

What people who choose to engage in religious practices should be upset about is those leaders who say a god gave them the right/permission/duty to commit crimes against other people.

"those leaders who say a god gave them the right/permission/duty"

Who are they, and why would only religious people need to be concerned?

Did you read the article?

The former bastard administration of the US led on that "God" was leading their actions. Number 43 was sure "God" was talking to him and directing his decisions.

Now we have Wiley Drake saying it's all right to give thanks to "God" for the death of Dr. Tiller - and he's doing so without reprimand on public airwaves. He claims these acts, as well as the death of our President Barack Obama, are fulfilling imprecatory prayers in the bible. He's using those psalms to justify his hatred and angry and, if there is anyone to blame, it's "God."

Sort of a spin on Geraldine Jones's old line, "The devil made me do it."

Now if those who say Christianity is all about the love, then they should publicly speak out and correct people like Drake.

China and North Korea are countries where the traditional culture is still strong, and historical developments emphasizing individual freedoms, democratic attitudes, thinking for oneself, and questioning authority and orthodoxy are absent. (Yeah, I'm talking about the Enlightenment again, but I'll add that this process in Europe clearly started with the Reformation.) These traditional attitudes are wrapped up with religious ideas and emphasize obedience, deference to leaders/elders, and not being "different". It's not surprising that the communists who are selling their own brand of authoritarian, not-to-be-questioned quasi-religious ideology would do well in these countries--they are building on the traditional culture.

Similarly, the fascist combine(d) their pseudo-scientific ideology with both conservative religious ideas and pre-Christian ethnocentric mythology--whatever narratives supported the "we are superior" and "our old ways are better" and "follow the heroic leader" memes. They very much used religion for their purposes.

(Now, if someone was saying it was Abrahamic monotheism that messed up everything and created repressive, ethnocentric, sexist societies, then I would point to all these Eastern societies with supposedly more tolerant, gentler, closer-to-nature religions and suggest that it's really us, not the religions, that do this kind of mess.)

I don't see the Eastern "religions" as religions, but more of a philosphy to live by. It's when  gods who selectively speak to people and choose favorites and demand non-questioning obedience start being talked of that I start smelling a line of crap.

Yes, people get greedy and controlling and religion is a tool they use to justify what they do.

And yet, those societies don't do better with the rights of minorities, women, children, social hierarchy, or the right to self-determination and dissent. (On the contrary, at least at this point in time.)

Something else is going on, is what I'm saying. It's basic and pervasive, a sticky mess that runs through most of human history. Religions are secondary to it. Sometimes they're used to rationalize it, sometimes to challenge it, most of the time to console people. That's what it looks like to me, at least.

EM JAY "they should publicly speak out"
You mean, they should say something like:

Dave A. Jun 12, 2009, 1:00pm EDT
Yes. Christianity doesn't especially need another blowhard with perverse views to make it look bad. Frankly, Islam did not need OBL either.

You posted an article, so you're good. But you ducked the question of why it is that all those who love justice should not speak out.

Anikó: you've provided a well-articulated history of how leaders co-opt the tenets of religious teachings for nefarious purposes that have nothing to do with them. Note to EM JAY: read Anikó. All that remains is to ask, does the elaboration of religious understandings of necessity imply an assumption of responsibility for their perversion?

Does a statement by GWB that he is "on a Crusade, eh heh, eh heh-heh!" forever taint whatever religion that he has claimed. Does OBL's twisting of Islam's teachings proscribing the killing of innocents forever taint Islam?

Do you think we (or some of us) are somehow programmed to not just survive, but to survive and elimate those who don't fall in line?

"a sticky mess"

That is it exactly, Anikó. That is at the crux. The resolution of justice, if one could sweep the deck completely clear of how failed humans have sullied the opportunity to rise to freedom. I wonder if we could both understand that together.

Dave, speak out and speak out loud if you don't agree with what those who claim to be Christian leaders are saying or the way they use their bibles to make it look like what they do, including murder and publicly stating they people dead as an okay thing to do.

It was not justice for a man to shoot another who was living within the law just because he didn't agree with the law, but hears prominent people in the media and in the pulpits say it can be justified by a bible verse. I don't believe in gods dictating what is morally correct and in my view, all religions are tainted by their corrupt leaders and followers.

At the deepest level, it's not about who falls in line. It's just biology. You can't just survive--you survive at the expense of other living things. At our human level, yes, the drive to control the resources needed for survival is obvious in so much of what history is about--and that's where falling in line comes into the picture. (But first, of course, you should be "we" and not "they". We are the ones with the right to the resources; they are the thieves, the usurpers, the unworthy.)

And yes, some people are "better" programmed for this sad farce than others, who sit and shake our heads (and only survive because our societies these days are complex enough to provide many little niches for misfits to hide in--and because we have made some progress in the past few centuries).

(Okay, I should probably sign off for today.)

EM JAY: "It was not justice for a man to shoot another"

Stop right there. That is where your content ends. You comfort yourself with the rest.

Anikó: "you survive at the expense of other living things"

You deserve to live, Anikó. The progress of humankind has required the straining of every one of us. I don't want you signing off, ever. Now I am off to my MIL's birthday party. - best -

Dave, I'm not one who believes life begins at inception. And my entire comment was:

It was not justice for a man to shoot another who was living within the law just because he didn't agree with the law, but hears prominent people in the media and in the pulpits say it can be justified by a bible verse. I don't believe in gods dictating what is morally correct and in my view, all religions are tainted by their corrupt leaders and followers.

I'm also for the death penalty in certain cases. I don't believe this nut that shot Dr. Tiller should face the death penalty.

And, if I were attacked, I would not at all feel bad if I killed my attacker. I would kill to defend my loved ones too, if the situation required.

I read your full comment. I am against the death penalty. Period. That doesn't mean I don't believe in self-defense. That's not quite the same as state-sponsored murder, do you think?

I agree there's an important difference. The death penalty is after the fact--it's not defensive but vindictive..

I don't view it as vindictive. Perhaps it is for the victims' families somewhat, but there are just some people that life imprisonment is too good for.The death penalty should be reserved for cases in which the crime against another person is so unbelievably, off-the-charts insane or hateful that jury and judge feel the world would be a better place without that person breathing.

It shouldn't be automatic in cases where a police officer is shot. It should be used very sparingly.

I very much believe if you're caught with a head in your fridge, and you're the only one who knows how it got there, you should probably not be on the planet with other living beings.

What is it if not vindictive? The reasons you give all fall under that category. (You could call it "punitive", but that means the same thing.)

Other justifications would be deterrance and self-defense/the defense of innocents--both essentially moot in the case of the most heinous crimes. They's committed by people who are undeterrable and they're not likely to be ever released.

(There is of course the problem that there is no way to prove "and you're the only one who knows how it got there". If we have the death penalty, we will be executing innocent people from time to time, even with the best of systems. How heinous is that?)

Because of the possibility of executing someone who is innocent, I believe the death penalty should be used very sparingly.

There are some inmates whose crimes are so heinous that the other inmates won't have anything to do with them. They can't live in general population because they would be beaten to a pulp. (Like Jeffrey Dahmer was.)

Call it vindictive, but I don't see it as a problem when it comes to some of these guys. Anyone who would brutally murder one of my loved ones because it's how he gets his kicks, would find me volunteering to pull the lever, take the shot, push the syringe, whatever. There's no fixing that kind of evil, hateful, damaged person.

And doesn't the idea of a man convicted for murder committed as part of a robbery bludgeoning a mentally ill gay serial killer (of a race he hates, to boot) to death with an iron pipe and claiming to be doing "the work of God" give you back your faith in the moral sense of humankind?

Only in America could that happen.

But coming back around to the idea of "because God says so" -

I don't believe faith in a religion gives anyone morales. Either you have a sense of what's correct or you don't. If "God" said go play in traffic, would they?

We may not all agree on the complex details of what is moral, but the majority of people in the world have a gut feeling when a line has been crossed. Sometimes though, I think some people are okay with allowing something to slide (or even be thankful for it) if it suits their point of view on another matter.

Who knows the possibilities for you, EM JAY.

I don't think that the question ,"when does life begin", is the age old question that we needs to answer.  

But, if anyone wants a Biblical idea, then, at the beginning, in Genesis... ." and God breathed into the nostrals of the man, the breath of life"... (he began to breath air) parenthisis mine,..."and the man BECAME, a living soul".

Afterwhich..."God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom he formed".

But anyway, Man is not considered to be a living soul until he breathes air. Biblically, anyway.

Well, it depends on which version of it you believe in, in Genesis. Some haven't evolved beyond, Em Jay...some haven't evolved beyond....

"Unlike, say, the 20th century, with 100 million or so innocents butchered by a few "advanced," "safely" non-religious leaders."

Even Hitler, though, used religion to control sections of the populace, and throughout his Reich had the support of the German Catholic church, or I should say major segments of it. Barbaric hangovers don't guard against man's inhumanity to man, but the do give the barbaric just one more tool to control others.

That is crap, Ron. Read EM JAY's comments in this thread. He is equally delusional about the "responsibility" of the religious to the actions of demagogues who claim "the faith." One of these days we'll have to have a talk and get to the bottom of this.

By the way, I love you, man. I'm sorry we  haven't connected lately and I'm praying fervently all the time for your well-being. My fondest wishes for you and your best friend in the world at your place.

I just purchased a new bra yesterday and I'm not a transvestite.

What Ron says there is essentially true, Dave. The vast majority of Germans were Christians, and part of their definition of Christian was "not Jewish". After that, they only needed to concentrate on their own grievances, deny that anything too bad was being done (that's just Jewish propaganda), and talk about how after all, "the Jews" have brought it on themselves through "their" behavior.

No, religion didn't cause any of that. But it was not absent from Hitler's toolkit at all.

And in all fairness, some religious people did challenge what was going on, inspired by a different understanding of their faith than the majority.

Like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who went to jail and was eventually executed for his opposition to the National Socialists. The Berlin Confession, which he helped create, laid out the quintessential Christian objections to the National Socialist agenda. Most of the signers of that document, which included a relative of mine, never survived the regime.

I bless the memory of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

I revere the example of Count Von Molke, the great German jurist who wrote movingly that the duty of a Christian was to oppose the Nazi regime.

He was killed for his efforts to this end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_James_Graf_von_Moltke

Roy--do you know enough about that relative of yours to write an article about him? That would be totally cool.

Not very much, Aniko. There are times when I wonder if it's family legend, but I was always told that one of the signers was family, I believe from my grandmother's side, the Ellingers. I'll have to ask around, but everybody from that generation of my family is long gone.

Sorry EM JAY. "She is..."

"What Ron says there is essentially true, Dave."

No, what he says is essentially not true. 11 million people were slaughtered by Hitler, of whom just over half were Jews. If one were going to pick a brief label for his "principles" it might be eugenics, or "racial purity" mixed with nationalism. Obviously those ideas were bastardized as well to the Nazi's liking, and the popularity of eugenics, which was widespread around the world prior to that time, fell into disfavor. Great thesis but sitting on wobbly legs.

Makes no difference to the fact that he controlled more than a few segments of the population by professing to be a Christian, though his private conversations have historically proven him not to have been, at any level. My point is that religion was, and is now being, used to accomplish evil, and always has been. This fellow in the article is a major case in point. If you profess your belief in God, there are many that will give you a free pass through some pretty horrid things, and as we all know, once you get someone to "buy into" you, it's harder to shake that "faith". Hitler used religon to increase and hold onto his power, as rulers down through time always have. It helped make it possible for Hitler to execute millions, and looking back a little further, for the church to send thousands and thousands of children off to be sold into slavery through "the children's crusades".

I disagree with the significance of your thesis, but thanks for sharing.

The private conversations in which Hitler spoke disparagingly about Christianity have a single source (his secretary). Despite this, I'm inclined to believe them, because they make perfect sense given his obsessions with strength and dominance, and because I've heard some Nazis talk the same way ("Christianity and Communism are both Jewish plots cooked up to weaken the Gentiles"). The majority of Nazis, though, love to go on about the Church and her beautiful, pure, healthy, moral, national traditions standing valiently, sword in hand, againts the moral decadence of the liberal-bolshevik--effeminate-miscegenating-atheist Jew.

(This is a pretty good take of the "Hitler--Christian or Atheist" debate.)

I thought there were stories of one other of his intimates saying he was not exactly religious. Seem to remember a history channel show not too long ago that talked about it. Can't remember at the moment which one.

A lesson the Republicans learned to good advantage, I might add.

Yes, and not even the "moderates" told them to sit down, shut up, and get off the Jesus wagon.

I stay away from Southern Baptists.

Me too!

All I'm saying, Dave, is that it isn't so much the belief that is the problem, down through history, there have been those that used that belief system to control others. The council of Micea (spelling?), that settled the question of what was to be included, and what was to be excluded from the New Testament was exactly a case in point. Constantine needed a unifying religion, not one splintered into the many factions Christianity existed as up to that point, and he locked the bickering leaders all in a room and told them they couldn't come out till Christianity was something he could use to his over all benefit ( a simplification, I know, but that's the jist of it). I realize many don't know the history of how and why their religion has developed into what it now exists as, but the underlying principle of all religion is to make sure the powerful either attain that power, or keep it.

Nicaea, 325 C.E. Constantine had a role as a convener but is not credited with directing or contributing to the content of the creed. What happened at Nicaea was not bad per se, but the co-optation of the church, and more importantly, the next 1200 years of what became Catholicism that obscured Jesus' message were more than unfortunate. But you know all that.

Of Course, Dave, but the truth is, without that ruler that wanted to use Christianity as his own unifying force, to his gain, the Christian religion would likely still be a fractured and splintered entity. Not that it hasn't tried to self destruct over the centuries, but it was the power that it would gain men that insured it, not the message. Catholicism is a case in point. The power of the church, and it's hierarchy was the point, and the splintering of the religion into various protestant sects, always about who held the power over the faithful. If you could delineate yourself from the pope, you too could wield power over a mini kingdom. Still happening today. Jones, Koresh, Moon, Paulson, the Bakers, Swaggert, the late Rev. Falwell, etc. Power over the incomes, minds, and hearts of men is a heady draw...

Christianity had spread throughout the Mediterranean basin, and was a huge influence, before Constantine called together the council, which is sort of the point. That various forms of corruption have dogged the church universal since then is interesting, but still not the defining characteristic of Christianity or the influence it has in people's lives. We obviously differ on this, Ron, although I see your point.

People see what they want to in it, Dave, just as they do in politics, and in all truth, they are much the same thing, tools to use to gain power over other men, when one investigates it fully. Corruption didn't exactly dog the church, it was and is integral. As long as men possess a lust for power, those that have it in good measure will rise to the leadership of any societal group. Mono deistic religions sprang up much at the same time, in a roughly six hundred year window of time, as rulers of various nations realized the influence that could be brought to bear with their implementation. The Jewish religion was invented wholly out of proceeding religions and myths, from other nations, solely to advance the interests and provide cohesion for a single tribe of people (translated, the power of their leaders), and others were developed for other groups, similarly. The Christian split from the Jewish religion was pretty much all about the disciples not wanting to lose the gravy train and the power their status as followers of Jesus allotted them. Jesus himself would have never condoned the religion that sprang up around him, according to his own words. He was uncompromisingly and wholly a Jew. Yes, "Christianity" had spread throughout the Mediterranean basin, but not as we know it now. It was comprised of many diverse beliefs and loyalties to many of the separate disciples with their own variations (One of them, Paul, I think, was said to have taught total abstinence for all Christians, and was said to have been put to death because of it by a pissed off husband that lost the favors of his wife), to influential church leaders with their own interests, and yes, to the nations and leaders that embraced it, and made it their tool. This is why the Council had to be convened, there were so many variations, and so much jealousy, and so much actual bloodshed between the different sects, that it had to be quelled for the sake of Constantin's power. Constantin, In my own and many other's opinions, was no more a Christian than I believe Bush was, and used Christianity to great advantage to consolidate that power. The problem is not in the innocuous belief in a God, but what that belief lets those unscrupulous enough to exploit it, accomplish in it's name. Many people's lives have been enriched by their belief in religion, but the ability and maybe even more so, the decision to believe in something without any proof, faith, if you will, makes them easy prey for the unscrupulous. If they can provide any convoluted reasoning to claim God demands it, they can sell it, and sell it they have, throughout our history, just as this fellow Em Jay cites demonstrates so well. Religions, though they have a great capacity for granting solace to the masses, also make them the pawns of other men, unfortunately. I realize someone that hasn't done a great deal of research into the origins of organized religion is going to have a hard time swallowing my views, but the line of history, when amply researched, makes a powerful case for their use as mostly a tool for evil men.

I disagree. But your intense cynicism is noted.

OK, Dave, I didn't think you would, or that any religious person would. I used to be, I know.

Aniko, Substitute liberal for Jewish, and you will begin to understand the conservative mind as encouraged by the Coulters, Limbaughs and Hannitys. I hate to say this, but the Neocons borrowed heavily from Hitler's playbook, or I should say Goebbel's.

Tell me about it, Ron. I'm from Central Europe. I don't even need to substitute--the two words are synonymous there. :-)

Dehumanize and defame.

Divide and Conquer.

Label and dismiss.