Say Anything Blog

"Sally,” while I support capital punishment in certain cases, the secular case against it is actually stronger than the religious--and actually the so-called “religious” case against it is more or less an irreligious argument.

That is, when religious liberals argue against the death penalty, they don’t invoke the fact that the victim was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27, Genesis 9:6), or that those who spill the blood of innocents ought to have their own spilled.  Those are, of course, religious arguments FOR the death penalty.

Rather, they argue that it’s not applied fairly ("more blacks are executed relative to their population"), or that it’s one penalty that can’t be revoked.

That’s not an intrinsically religious argument--only the add on of “thou shalt not kill” (the Hebrew actually means “you shall not murder") puts a religious patina on it.

So I’d have to suggest that the strongest arguments against the death penalty come not from religion, but from sources that virtually anybody ought to be able to acknowledge, if not agree with.

I happen to love dogs. But if a rabid one were to make the mistake of coming to close to my children I would make the humane decision to end its’ exsistance.

Excellent example!

Back in 2001, I had to kill a dog for biting my friend’s little daughter.

Dumb dog. It knew too. It knew it messed up and that it’s one moment of anger just ended its life.

The liberals would tell you that I killed the dog out of revenge. This is their logic.

The liberals who claim that are simply idiots. They don’t understand the concept of responsibility for one’s actions.

Bike Bubba,

I didn’t mean to imply that it is a religous concept that does not allow for the death penalty; only that personal beliefs may preclude the taking of life for any reason.

Rather, they argue that it’s not applied fairly ("more blacks are executed relative to their population"), or that it’s one penalty that can’t be revoked.

As I said in my post, I’ve yet to hear a reasonable argument. The fact that it can’t be revoked is only a strong argument that it needs to be invoked with impartiality and beyond doubt.

So I’d have to suggest that the strongest arguments against the death penalty come not from religion, but from sources that virtually anybody ought to be able to acknowledge, if not agree with.

So what are those arguments?

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

likwidshoe,

They don’t understand the concept of responsibility for one’s actions.

You understand.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

"Sally”, those are the best they have, as far as I can tell.  I’m just pointing out that even the so-called “religious” arguments against the death penalty are generally pretty secular.  If it’s any religion, it’s secular humanism or (effectively) self-worship.

If you don’t “buy” those arguments...well, you and I have something in common there.  That’s fine by me.  I’m just saying “this is where they’re coming from, flawed logic and all.”

it needs to be invoked with impartiality and beyond doubt.

The argument is that we are exceedingly poor at doing this.

Hawk,

The argument is that we are exceedingly poor at doing this.

That may be. But that is also an exceedingly poor argument against the death penalty.

There are numerable examples of where we fail in our endeavors to keep our citizens from harm. How about improving not eliminating this quest?

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

There are numerable examples of where we fail in our endeavors to keep our citizens from harm.

Statistically it doesn’t keep us any safer.