talkpolitics | Religion and the death penalty.

I'm pretty religious and also pretty liberal (in the American sense of the word) I became liberal (I used to be a Libertarian when I was younger) gradually as I've gotten older and generally been impressed with how well liberal institutions work. I regard politics as more practical than moral and don't think I have any right to have my own religious notions of morality enforced on others. Like many liberals, I object to the death penalty because if its long history of racist, classist and anti-male** application and its inherent imperfections (a single innocent being executed invalidates the whole institution.)

But, unlike other political positions I have, my disdain for the death penalty coincides with my religious beliefs on the matter. Mainly, that God's justice is perfect, God will send the sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven and it's not really possible for us, as mere mortals, to tell which is which. As such, justice as in retribution is a matter for God. We would do best to respect life and ensure our safety by locking up people who hurt others.

Yet I find that many people who are religious have no problem with the death penalty-- since religion tends to intersect of conservative politics more often. Or is there a religious connection there as well?

Roman Catholic Church says that the death penalty is "lawful slaying" and basis this on it being a necessary deterrent and prevention method, but not as a means of vengeance. So, if it is ineffective as a deterrent (there is some evidence that this is true) --would they reject it? Recently they have though not very vocally.
Anglican and Episcopalian bishops condemned the death penalty.
Southern Baptist Convention updated Baptist Faith and Message. In it the convention officially sanctioned the use of capital punishment by the State. It said that it is the duty of the state to execute those guilty of murder and that God established capital punishment in the Noahic Covenant. This is different from the Roman Catholic take on it-- no mention of it excluding vengeance.
Other Baptists reject the death penalty, my church does!
Like Christians, Islam and Buddhists and Jews do not have a united stance on the matter.
Atheists also have many views on the matter.

So, based on all of that, do we find no guidance in religion? I wonder how I would feel about the matter if the religious teachings I have encountered didn't match with my philosophical notions-- Is it always the case that one must shape the other? Is there anyone who thinks the death penalty should be allowed, though they suppose it is sinful or against their religion? Is there anyone who wants to stop the death penalty though they think it might not be a sin?

**We could talk about how believing it is wrong to kill a woman still further dehumanizes her-- the global effect of this furthesr sexism against women, the local effect is unfair to poor, mostly minority, men.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Is there anyone who wants to stop the death penalty though they think it might not be a sin?

Well that would be anyone who is not religious and against the death penalty, right?

Do people find no guidance in religion? Seems that way sometimes...usually in the political realm, religion is manipulated in order justify immoral acts. Should people find guidance in religion when dealing with policy? I personally think no, not at all. A lot of ideas within specific religions are impractical, anti-humanistic and obscure, so if you remove all that noise, what do you have? You have basic human ideals not specific to any religion. Also, many of these ideals can and do exist without religion - like the golden rule for instance. I'm an atheist and a big believer in the golden rule. No need to look to religion for inspiration to be good or do what's right for humankind.

You have basic human ideals not specific to any religion.
False. The constitutive and conceptual frameworks between cultures regarding morality are really quite striking at times.

No need to look to religion for inspiration to be good or do what's right for humankind.
Yeah, but that is sort of the question at hand, isn't it? What is good or right for humankind? This just seems like a parenthetical, rhetorical remark that neatly removes the issue at hand from any clear or direct scrutiny. But you just know, right? "Remove all that noise" and you have... your opinion... and your opinion just happens to be what is right and good for humankind! Huzzah! Well that was easy. On to the next thing!

I by no means want to mute discussion.

What is good for humankind? Gee I dunno, lets ask every philosopher that has ever lived. You get different answers every time, though there is often overlap.

"What is good for humankind" is faaar to big of a question to tackle, and there can never be unanimous agreement on it, so we just have to come as close as we can to it.

The constitutive and conceptual frameworks between cultures regarding morality are really quite striking at times.

So then we shouldn't look to religion for our answers then, because they can often contradict each other... but you can't really claim that many of the worlds most popular religions don't have similar themes in morality, because they do. The stuff that overlaps most often should be taken more seriously when debating the broad and slippery topic of "morality". When I say "noise" I mean that obscure shit that most rational people don't look to for inspiration. Like the majority of the Old Testament.

Is the death penalty immoral? Maybe, maybe not. Your answer just shouldn't derive from a religious text, and you personally say it doesn't. You say your opinion on the death penalty happens to coincide with it. That would mean its mere coincidence, right? Maybe my opinion on the death penalty coincides with the Scientology doctrine (I don't know what Scientology says about the death penalty, just using it as an example), but by no means did it influence me on my decision. Where do my opinions come from? The basic principles of equality, humanism, and the right to pursue happiness as long as it doesn't prevent someone else from doing the same. Kind of like what was established in the constitution.

The stuff that overlaps most often should be taken more seriously when debating the broad and slippery topic of "morality".
No, it should most definitely not be taken more seriously, since where we differ is exactly what we're trying to deal with.

For instance, you express a typical, modern, individualist view which comes from a very specific, Western, economic background. The problem is, this "common sense" individualism doesn't work if you're not a) Western, b)capitalist or c) poor as fuck.

The very question of "morality" is not limited to the quaint situation of an individual who wants to be happy. The problem and question is how not to be "a good person", but how to have "a good society".

it should most definitely not be taken more seriously, since where we differ is exactly what we're trying to deal with.

Why should "treat others the way you would want to be treated" - a principle that reoccurs in many religions - be given the same girth as something obscure that only appears in one scripture in one religion? This is all hypothetical, of course.

So what are we even trying to get at? Please tell me cause I can't even see the main point of what you're getting at. It's too broad. Are you really asking "how to have a good society"? Cause that could go off into so many different directions I wouldn't even know where to start.

If we are talking about the American death penalty, then we should stick to debating it in a way that it will make sense for most people in America, which, believe it or not, is western and capitalistic. I can't speak for other countries and their general ideas of morality.

If we are talking about the American death penalty, then we should stick to debating it in a way that it will make sense for most people in America, which, believe it or not, is western and capitalistic.
And Judeo-Christian, which involves the view that morality is caught up in the participation of human being with divine being.

I can't speak for other countries and their general ideas of morality.
Now you're just confusing me. Either you have studied all these other cultures and come up with your lowest common denominator, or you just assume that they're really all just the same at their base. But they're not.

Why should "treat others the way you would want to be treated" - a principle that reoccurs in many religions - be given the same girth as something obscure that only appears in one scripture in one religion?
Because if human worth is predicated through divine participation, social participation, individual inheritance or otherwise, then the judgments and answers you will come up with be very different and have very different consequences.

Be your own Pope!

Well that would be anyone who is not religious and against the death penalty, right?

I don't follow, if I'm not religious than I must believe that there is no such thing as sin or just that the death penalty might not be a sin? Not being religious doesn't entail a lack of belief in moral law or moral constraints.

He asked if there was anyone who wants to stop the penalty that doesn't think of it as a sin. When I hear the word sin, I think "crime against god" - so people who are not religious AND don't believe in the death penalty would not think of it as sin, but think of it as bad in some other way.

I totally agree that not having a religion doesn't mean you don't have moral constraints, i just wouldn't think they would consider it a "sin", because that's a word with strong religious connotations.

Oh, I interepreted 'sin' to denote moral wrong, I think that's more charitable and consistent with the definition I read in, for example, Merriam-Webster.

ah, well the word "sin" makes me uncomfortable. i dont like using it unless im talking in in reference to religion, not just things that are morally wrong.

I understand, but that doesn't mean that it holds that more specific meaning when someone else uses it.

I simply misunderstood the intention

Religion and the death penalty.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject