View Full Version : Thou Shalt Not Kill



Thunder
07-15-2008, 08:15 PM
For a nation that was bulit upon a belief, One Nation Under God, is pretty much a country of hypocrites.

In the bible or the 10 commendants, it clears say... Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Still, the government in many states murder thousands of convicted felons that were given the death penalty with many more to come.

Why would our country be One Nation Under God and continues to disobey the one rule, Thou Shalt Not Kill.

I know it is wrong for the felons to kill, rape, and all the stuff that warrants the death penalty, but it is not our place to take a life.

Thou Shalt Not Kill

The best humane punishment is life in prison with no special access, except for 3 basic meals (no snacks). The most I think they could be given is pencils (or pens) and paper.

I don't see how the followers of Jesus Christ is in favor of supporting the murders of human life. Not only the convicted felons be judged, the supporters of such death penalty will be judged by God.

People will be judged for standing by, allowing the murders to continue by the government that proclaimed this country to be One Nation Under God.

MadMonk
07-15-2008, 08:24 PM
Our laws aren't constrained to one religion's moral restrictions. It's one of the many benefits of the separation of church and state.

Thunder
07-15-2008, 08:27 PM
Separation of Church and State.

Okay, so the country still feel the need to be proclaimed... One Nation Under God which is official belief by the government, which will be the State. I don't see the separation in that.

Easy180
07-15-2008, 08:44 PM
I think most of the devastated family members who have had love ones murdered could care less about this particular bible passage

If the family members want the life spared I'm fine with that but if anyone murdered someone close to me I would be more than happy with them getting judged by God much sooner than later

Martin
07-15-2008, 08:55 PM
actually, thunder's premise is flawed. the commandment is better translated from the hebrew language, "thou shalt not murder"... big difference.

-M

NativeOkie
07-15-2008, 08:56 PM
Seperation of Church and state is not in our constitution.
I t was in the fail Soviet Union.
Go figure.

Midtowner
07-15-2008, 08:56 PM
It's debatable whether the Commandment says "kill" or "murder." Murder carries with it an entirely different meaning and virtually all churches give us situations where killing is not sin.

Murder means that the killing had to be unlawful.

Killing is just the taking of a human life.

But how does all of that square with, say, the Roman Catholic Church's "Just War" doctrine?

And how does this really have anything to do with a secular nation of secular laws? This is not a Christian theocracy. People who think it is scare me. Were we ruled by these religious people we'd look more like a backward Middle East state ruled by bearded old men in funny hats. To hell with that.... pun intended.

Midtowner
07-15-2008, 08:58 PM
actually, thunder's premise is flawed. the commandment is better translated from the hebrew language, "thou shalt not murder"... big difference.

-M

There's debate with valid points on both sides. The Roman Catholic Church translates it as "kill," while most Protestants go with "murder."

-- I read it on wikipedia.

Martin
07-15-2008, 09:14 PM
there's debate with valid points on both sides.

i guess i fail to see how the other inerpretation is logically possible. if the hebrew word was intended to be translated as the english 'kill' then that implies that all killing is wrong. however, hebrew scripture itself (numbers 35:21 for instance) calls for killers to be put to death. that would be an obvious contradiction.

furthermore, from a linguistic standpoint the words themselves are different. the word used in the commandment and in other similar instances is an entirely different word than the one used where such a killer is 'put to death.'

-M

Martin
07-15-2008, 09:17 PM
seperation of church and state is not in our constitution.

i can't seem to remember... what is the opening line of the first amendment, again? : )

-M

Midtowner
07-15-2008, 09:17 PM
I never said we Catholics were a logical bunch :)

Midtowner
07-15-2008, 09:20 PM
Seperation of Church and state is not in our constitution.
I t was in the fail Soviet Union.
Go figure.

It's called the establishment clause. It's in there, I promise :)

The clause's meaning is clarified in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. The letter was incorporated into our Conlaw lexicon in a case (the name escapes me) occurring sometime in the late 19th century.

Martin
07-15-2008, 09:22 PM
i never said we catholics were a logical bunch

then again, faith itself really isn't a logical thing.

-M

GWB
07-15-2008, 09:26 PM
For a nation that was bulit upon a belief, One Nation Under God, is pretty much a country of hypocrites.

In the bible or the 10 commendants, it clears say... Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Still, the government in many states murder thousands of convicted felons that were given the death penalty with many more to come.

Why would our country be One Nation Under God and continues to disobey the one rule, Thou Shalt Not Kill.

I know it is wrong for the felons to kill, rape, and all the stuff that warrants the death penalty, but it is not our place to take a life.

Thou Shalt Not Kill

The best humane punishment is life in prison with no special access, except for 3 basic meals (no snacks). The most I think they could be given is pencils (or pens) and paper.

I don't see how the followers of Jesus Christ is in favor of supporting the murders of human life. Not only the convicted felons be judged, the supporters of such death penalty will be judged by God.

People will be judged for standing by, allowing the murders to continue by the government that proclaimed this country to be One Nation Under God.

Obviously you haven't read the whole Bible. There is more in there than just that one scripture that you are quoting.

The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts: murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19); adultery (Leviticus 20:10); homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), prostitution (Leviticus 21:9) and rape (Deuteronomy 22:24-25), and several other crimes.

The Apostle Paul recognized the power of the government to institute capital punishment where appropriate (see Romans 13:1-5). And no where in the New Testament does Jesus condemn the death penalty.

You may not like this reality, but to call our country a nation of hypocrites just because you disagree with it, doesn't make it so.

solitude
07-15-2008, 09:29 PM
Whatever the Bible says - I support the death penalty for murder. Period.

Midtowner
07-15-2008, 09:54 PM
Solitude, I'm surprised to hear you say that. You seem to be a constant advocate for social justice. I was once in favor of capital punishment. Then Terry Nichols happened.

Here's a guy who did some very bad things, was a co-conspirator in the at-the-time largest terrorist attack on American soil. He killed children for chrissakes.

The full weight and force of the federal government was brought to bear on him -- and he got life.

Then the state decided it'd have a go at it. We thought it was a sure thing. Our death penalty laws were liberalized just for him! Yet still, one juror lied during voire dire and had moral problems with sentencing him to death. So Terry Nichols, one of the most prolific killers in American history gets to live while we, in that same time period sentenced a woman to death for killing her husband for money.

When I think of justice, I think of equal justice for all and that there should be a somewhat predictable penalty for any given crime. If we can't do that with something as powerful as the death penalty, then IMHO, we ought not have it. It needs to be administered with justice and fairly to all or not at all.

If what Nichols did doesn't deserve the needle (or for that matter, a much more brutal end), then I don't know what does.

solitude
07-15-2008, 10:12 PM
Solitude, I'm surprised to hear you say that. You seem to be a constant advocate for social justice. I was once in favor of capital punishment. Then Terry Nichols happened.

Here's a guy who did some very bad things, was a co-conspirator in the at-the-time largest terrorist attack on American soil. He killed children for chrissakes.

The full weight and force of the federal government was brought to bear on him -- and he got life.

Then the state decided it'd have a go at it. We thought it was a sure thing. Our death penalty laws were liberalized just for him! Yet still, one juror lied during voire dire and had moral problems with sentencing him to death. So Terry Nichols, one of the most prolific killers in American history gets to live while we, in that same time period sentenced a woman to death for killing her husband for money.

When I think of justice, I think of equal justice for all and that there should be a somewhat predictable penalty for any given crime. If we can't do that with something as powerful as the death penalty, then IMHO, we ought not have it. It needs to be administered with justice and fairly to all or not at all.

If what Nichols did doesn't deserve the needle (or for that matter, a much more brutal end), then I don't know what does.

That's a very good point. Punishments are not dealt out with any kind of equality and, you picked a perfect example, if Terry Nichols doesn't deserve the death penalty nobody does.

I'm hard to pin down on social and cultural issues. I'm one of these liberals who thinks that our cause has been hijacked by the culture warriors. The Democratic Party used to be a party of economic populists; now, to be "liberal" means to support gay rights, oppose the death penalty, affirmative action, be pro-choice, cry racism at every turn, embrace diversity, feminism, go easy-on-illegals, you name it. I agree with some of those things - others I don't. The point being that all of these cultural issues get all the attention and passion at the expense of any discussion about economic justice, which is what made Democrats different in the first place! To me, economic democracy is at the heart of being a liberal. These other social and cultural issues? They're distractions from the real fight for America's future.

Midtowner
07-15-2008, 10:25 PM
haha.. when I said social justice before, I threw up in my mouth a little.

Gotcha though.

But really, I am for "justice" and that means equal punishment for all. The death penalty is dealt out more frequently to minorities and poor people for the same sorts of crimes (that's all verifiable stuff, not just my opinion).

Toadrax
07-15-2008, 10:26 PM
Separation of Church and State.

Okay, so the country still feel the need to be proclaimed... One Nation Under God which is official belief by the government, which will be the State. I don't see the separation in that.

What does God have to do with the church?

God is a pretty vague term and most people believe in some sort of God. There is no separation of God and state, just separation of church and state. It means that the pope or some person does not tell our government what to do "in the name of God".

We figured out a long time ago that people who claimed to know the will of God were full of crap and shouldn't be put in any authority over free people.

That doesn't mean that our country doesn't believe in some sort of God.

Toadrax
07-15-2008, 10:29 PM
then again, faith itself really isn't a logical thing.

-M

Faith can still be rational.

lonestarstatesux
07-15-2008, 11:02 PM
Another important thing to consider is that these laws were for guidance and judgment of the people of the Old Testament, a national truly under God. Now, America is not a nation under God and any semblance of a 'new covenant' should apply to Christian people. God's chosen people were the Jewish nation and Christian converts, one governed as a nation, one spreading across the Earth without consequence of national boundaries.

Also, if you're looking for true and equal justice, we'll all be waiting quite awhile until God has His hand at it. The fairness of the death penalty is hard to evaluate and I feel that most people who "demand justice" will deal with attitudes of bitterness and unforgiveness for a long time. A great example to counteract that is Stephen - while being killed he asked God to not hold the sin of killing him against his killers. There may be no small coincidence that he also saw heaven open and saw the son of Man seated at the right hand of God and asked for Jesus to receive his spirit.

Martin
07-16-2008, 04:26 AM
faith can still be rational.
i don't debate that. rational and logical are two entirely different concepts.

-M

Pete
07-16-2008, 07:59 AM
I'm not in favor of the death penalty on principle, as it seems a very barbaric thing in many ways.

However, it does have it's purpose when it comes time to try murder victims. Otherwise, pleading not guilty then being found so pretty much gets you the same sentence -- life in prison -- than if you just own up to it.

Also, when there are multiple people involved in a crime, the death penalty is an effective bargaining chip to get cooperation. "Tell us the truth and at least you can save your own life."


Still, the capital punishment comes across too much like vengeance, and our government shouldn't be in that business.

bretthexum
07-16-2008, 02:18 PM
We all say that I'd give em the chair or whatever - but if I was actually in that position on the jury deciding if someone was going to die or not... that would be tough. Who am I to to decide someone's life? Just because I got "lucky" and picked for the jury? I go back and forth on this one. Then you hear the horror stories of innocent people being executed. I don't know about this one.

JBuzz7373
07-16-2008, 02:58 PM
I could understand the arguement a little better if it was said that Christians are hyprocritical for wanting to end someones life short who they believe does not know Christ. Doing so ends the possiblility of the conversion in prison for the rest of their natural life.

Toadrax
07-16-2008, 10:19 PM
You people are making a big assumption, that we know for a fact that the people we are executing committed the crimes they are being executed for.

Mistakes happen.. how will God feel when you execute an innocent person?

Nothing can ever be proved to be absolutely true, even with a confession. No system can be perfect. Our society needs to be protected, but there is no way to prosecute the guilty without nabbing a few innocent once in awhile. Going to prison for the rest of your life when you are innocent is pretty bad, but at least you get a life and can see/write your family and someday the truth may set you free.

We are fallable, you should know your limitations and act accordingly. To do otherwise is evil.

solitude
07-16-2008, 10:35 PM
You people are making a big assumption, that we know for a fact that the people we are executing committed the crimes they are being executed for.

Mistakes happen.. how will God feel when you execute an innocent person?

Nothing can ever be proved to be absolutely true, even with a confession. No system can be perfect. Our society needs to be protected, but there is no way to prosecute the guilty without nabbing a few innocent once in awhile. Going to prison for the rest of your life when you are innocent is pretty bad, but at least you get a life and can see/write your family and someday the truth may set you free.

We are fallable, you should know your limitations and act accordingly. To do otherwise is evil.

You also make a very good point. No telling how many innocent people we executed before DNA. Look at all the innocent people who have been locked up for years for crimes that, thank GOD, DNA, years later, exonerated them.

I am also troubled by fraudulent prosecutions when the prosecutor and corrupt forensics "specialists" team up to railroad an individual(s). Sound familiar? We've seen that right here in our own county.

You all make good points against the death penalty. In a perfect world, with perfect justice, I support the death penalty. But, we're obviously not there yet - and never will be. Maybe I should revisit this issue.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
07-16-2008, 10:38 PM
That's why I really don't support it generally.

I don't think it should be taken off the table (Mr. McVeigh anybody?), but I think it should be a very, VERY rare occasion.

Midtowner
07-16-2008, 10:46 PM
(Mr. McVeigh anybody?)n.

Mr. Nichols?

Oh GAWD the Smell!
07-16-2008, 10:47 PM
What about him?

Midtowner
07-16-2008, 10:53 PM
What about him?

I can't say it any better than I already said it:



Solitude, I'm surprised to hear you say that. You seem to be a constant advocate for social justice. I was once in favor of capital punishment. Then Terry Nichols happened.

Here's a guy who did some very bad things, was a co-conspirator in the at-the-time largest terrorist attack on American soil. He killed children for chrissakes.

The full weight and force of the federal government was brought to bear on him -- and he got life.

Then the state decided it'd have a go at it. We thought it was a sure thing. Our death penalty laws were liberalized just for him! Yet still, one juror lied during voire dire and had moral problems with sentencing him to death. So Terry Nichols, one of the most prolific killers in American history gets to live while we, in that same time period sentenced a woman to death for killing her husband for money.

When I think of justice, I think of equal justice for all and that there should be a somewhat predictable penalty for any given crime. If we can't do that with something as powerful as the death penalty, then IMHO, we ought not have it. It needs to be administered with justice and fairly to all or not at all.

If what Nichols did doesn't deserve the needle (or for that matter, a much more brutal end), then I don't know what does.

ETA: Yes, again, I will say I threw up in my mouth a bit when I typed "social justice."

Oh GAWD the Smell!
07-16-2008, 11:01 PM
F*ck him. He's one of the ones that SHOULD get it.

Karried
07-16-2008, 11:07 PM
We all say that I'd give em the chair or whatever - but if I was actually in that position on the jury deciding if someone was going to die or not... that would be tough. Who am I to to decide someone's life? Just because I got "lucky" and picked for the jury? I go back and forth on this one. Then you hear the horror stories of innocent people being executed. I don't know about this one.


How would you feel if the murdered victim was a loved one of yours and their killer was being tried?

Midtowner
07-16-2008, 11:08 PM
But he won't.

If we can't put Terry Nichols to death, how the hell do we justify executing someone like Brenda Andrews who only killed one person???

Midtowner
07-16-2008, 11:09 PM
How would you feel if the murdered victim was a loved one of yours and their killer was being tried?

I had a Kitty Dukakis flashback just now.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
07-16-2008, 11:18 PM
But he won't.

If we can't put Terry Nichols to death, how the hell do we justify executing someone like Brenda Andrews who only killed one person???

Don't know the particulars of her case...But are you planning on practicing non-sequitur law? What does one have to do with the other? I mean...Past the murder thing...If the death penalty is on the table in each case...How do you have a juror on one trial affect the outcome of a completely unrelated one?

I guess that the "Chewbacca" defense did work though...So you may be on to something.

Karried
07-16-2008, 11:42 PM
Let me rephrase it...



We all say that I'd give em the chair or whatever - but if I was actually in that position on the jury deciding if someone was going to die or not...


What if you were in the position of being related to the victim and their killer was being tried?

Would it make that decision easier to make? I'm just curious about how people would feel if they were personally affected rather than being on a jury.

Midtowner, what do you mean about Kitty Dukakis - electric chair - electric shock ??

Midtowner
07-17-2008, 12:05 AM
Don't know the particulars of her case...But are you planning on practicing non-sequitur law? What does one have to do with the other? I mean...Past the murder thing...If the death penalty is on the table in each case...How do you have a juror on one trial affect the outcome of a completely unrelated one?

I guess that the "Chewbacca" defense did work though...So you may be on to something.

Non sequitur? Really?

Tim McVeigh got death. Terry Nichols got life for the same crime.

Now, if you'll accept my nutso premise that killing 168 people is worse than killing one person, then you can see how I might be shocked that 168 murders = life in prison while 1 murder warrants death and that some call that "justice."

The point is that the standard is arbitrary and capricious as juries often are, and when we're dealing with matters of life and death, some folks might think that's a bad thing.

How do we argue that the death penalty is a deterrent when it's not a certainty? (proved by the life sentence received by an individual who helped perpetrate one of the most brutal and sick acts in the history of this country)

Midtowner
07-17-2008, 12:07 AM
Midtowner, what do you mean about Kitty Dukakis - electric chair - electric shock ??

Famous debate question to Michael Dukakis -- "If your wife were raped and murdered, would you support the death penalty for her killers?"

I was in grade school at the time, but I was even aware of that question back then.

Clearly, my parents weren't adequately monitoring my television viewing.

MadMonk
07-17-2008, 09:17 AM
Non sequitur? Really?

Tim McVeigh got death. Terry Nichols got life for the same crime.

Now, if you'll accept my nutso premise that killing 168 people is worse than killing one person, then you can see how I might be shocked that 168 murders = life in prison while 1 murder warrants death and that some call that "justice."

The point is that the standard is arbitrary and capricious as juries often are, and when we're dealing with matters of life and death, some folks might think that's a bad thing.

How do we argue that the death penalty is a deterrent when it's not a certainty? (proved by the life sentence received by an individual who helped perpetrate one of the most brutal and sick acts in the history of this country)
But did Nichols drive the truck, park it in front of the building, set the timer (or whatever) and walk away? Sure he was involved in the planning, but he didn't actually do the deed. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been put to death, but the fact that he didn't actually "push the button" is something that I'm sure the jurors considered.

Midtowner
07-17-2008, 09:25 AM
But did Nichols drive the truck, park it in front of the building, set the timer (or whatever) and walk away? Sure he was involved in the planning, but he didn't actually do the deed. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been put to death, but the fact that he didn't actually "push the button" is something that I'm sure the jurors considered.

They did convict on 161 counts of murder in the first degree, so they thought that Terry Nichols killed 161 people, intentionally and with malice aforethought.

There are people sitting on death row for much, much less.