Religion and the death penalty.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

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.

Comments

God will send the sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

There you go again Lenny, blaming the public for not understanding the convoluted teachings of Christianity. I dare say that most Christians would agree with the above and the basic premise of the good/obedient being rewarded and the wicked punished is the carrot-stick ideology at the heart of all religion.

Re: God will send the sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

To be fair it's not *that* convoluted. Jeff is right we are all "sinners" so perhaps I should have said the "repentant sinners to hell" ... or something--

Re: God will send the sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

My understanding is that the lay definition of repentance won't work either -- it has to be grace.

Re: God will send the sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I'm waiting for some clarified policies from God - this makes less sense than my county's zoning regulations, which one would think a supreme being could do a clearer job crafting.

Re: God will send the sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

If it was clear it'd be more like science or something.

Re: God will send the sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

No, it's pretty clear.

Re: God will send the sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Yes. God apparently also need to clear up for us the nature of matter on a subatomic scale.

Re: God will send the sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Sorta. My understanding from 10 years of Catholic schooling is that you must truly repent to receive grace, and true repentance can only be done through Christ and the Church. The two are functionally the same, though, since one triggers the other (or the act of repentance may be an act of grace - it's been a while since I re-read that part of the catechism).

Re: God will send the sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Yeah -- either way, a repentant sinner is not by definition a righteous person.

Re: God will send the sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

There you go again Lenny, blaming the public for not understanding the convoluted teachings of Christianity.

The doctrine of salvation by grace is not convoluted.

I dare say that most Christians would agree with the above

And I dare say that most high school graduates would agree with the idea that electrons are little pieces of stuff that orbit a nucelus. That doesn't make it so.

the basic premise of the good/obedient being rewarded and the wicked punished is the carrot-stick ideology at the heart of all religion.

So you don't know anything about Judaism, Buddhism, or Hinduism either?

So you don't know anything about Judaism, Buddhism, or Hinduism either?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to keep a friendly tone here.

What do you want to assert about those three other religions? The shtick they teach or the reality that's been historically practiced?

If we need to discuss Tibetan lamas keeping the populace in near-slavery, Hinduism using transmigration as a stick to keep the lower castes in line or Judaism's sacrificial animals, I guess we can.

Re: So you don't know anything about Judaism, Buddhism, or Hinduism either?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) Buddhism ponders a world in which everyone keeps on being re-incarnated and if you're lucky enough to be incarnated as a monk and keep X number of rules you *might* reach Nibbana in this lifetime.

2) Hinduism is an umbrella term referring to a number of completely different and unrelated religions, even after both the 19th and the 20th Centuries saw efforts to centralize them into one religion.

3) Judaism in all its forms rejects that God's laws apply to Gentiles beyond the Noachide Laws. Effectively it's *non*-evangelical, as is Hinduism, and both for the same reason-they center on peoples, not the more abstract realities of the Great Religions.

Re: So you don't know anything about Judaism, Buddhism, or Hinduism either?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Good thing that the secular justice system doesn't punish people for bad behavior -- or that secular legislators don't try to create incentives for good behavior! That would be religulous!

Re: So you don't know anything about Judaism, Buddhism, or Hinduism either?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

You're spinning off message now - but you do bring up a good point in that religion operates as a parallel justice system "creating incentives" in the form of not burning in eternal hellfire as a way of maintaining social control.

Just a minor question.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I notice you repeat to people "you don't know anything about this, it seems" and "most people don't understand that".

Care to elaborate more on the points which you claim others misunderstand / don't know anything about / are not enough educated on?

If you're attempting to create a hollow impression of excessive expertise in the field, I'm afraid there's something missing - and that's essence to your criticisms of others' ignorance.

Want examples?

Can you try to make a factual statement abourt religion?
I.e. saying someone "lacks the facts" but falling short of correcting where they're lacking.

I don't see how Christianity posits anything of the kind.
Saying simply "this isn't so" and falling short of explaining what Christianity actually posits regarding the particular issue.

No, it's pretty clear.
A remark that, in itself, doesn't mean anything.

Yes. God apparently also need to clear up for us the nature of matter on a subatomic scale.
Nice irony. And an escape along the tangent, falling short of explaining the issue again.

And I dare say that most high school graduates would agree with the idea that electrons are little pieces of stuff that orbit a nucelus. That doesn't make it so.
Falling short of expanding to the next level of discourse and telling what the electrons are (speaking figuratively here; in this case we're talking about religious doctrine).

So, do you care to add something essential and actually explain what it is that the other participants in the conversation are failing to grasp thus far, or you'll just keep throwing snarky remarks around, creating the impression that you're the ultimate expert on the subject, hoping that this would intimidate the rest of the participants in the conversation into keeping silent and/or agreeing with you?

Re: Just a minor question.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I have rather plainly refuted the OP's assertion with simple scripture references in other comments. This isn't a theology community -- so it doesn't seem that the specifics of Christian orthodoxy really warrant much investigation here. But it is pretty clear that "sinners go to hell and the righteous go to heaven" is a rather poor characterization of orthodox soteriology.

Re: Just a minor question.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Why not just offer a better one? Maybe you don't know me but I'm not one to fight to the death over a person with good information.

Re: Just a minor question.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

This sure is not a theology community, but I can predict a rising necessity of digging deep into the specifics of Christian orthodoxy within the week to follow, and possibly beyond. So if you're to demonstrate other people's ignorance, you better be prepared to provide some unbeatable arguments. ;-)

Re: God will send the sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And most Christians would be full of shit if they did say so. The majority of individual "religion" centers around ethnicity X and why they own land Y because Gods of Pantheon Z say so so there. The Great Religions primarily differ in that they tend to center on a universalist idea of Them V. Us, and this is true regardless of whether we speak of Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam.

Religion does not center on punishing the wicked and rewarding the good, not least one like Christianity where in theory there is no human being that is truly good. Even the priests & metropolitans of the religion itself.....

Re: God will send the sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

"The majority of individual "religion" centers around ethnicity X and why they own land Y because Gods of Pantheon Z say so so there."

What is individual "religion" ?

Re: God will send the sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Exactly what it says on the tin-an individual religion. As in Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Falun Gong, and so on.

Re: God will send the sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Oh-- I thought it was a kind of religion.

Re: God will send the sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven

[http://users.livejournal.com/little_e_/]

I think they are referring to the majority of religions. The "big" religions have lost this tendency, for obvious reasons (ethically limited religions tend not to get very big,) but the smaller religions tend to retain it. Judaism is the most obvious example that comes to mind--Judaism is pretty big on the whole 'god made a covenant with us and therefore we get to live in Israel" thing.

Re: God will send the sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Define Christian then, as that is not basic Christian doctrine, carrot/stick.
Altho there are a lot of people who are probably Christian who believe that, so perhaps you have a point.

Re: God will send the sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Eternal suffering awaits anyone who rejects God's infinite love... I didn't make that one up.

Basic Christian theology is something like: Men made the world so poopy and sin-filled that God had to send Himself, as His Son, to sacrifice Himself to Himself, so that people could be saved by asking for his grace. I'm not really sure where the anti-gay and anti-abortion parts come in, but I guess if you're one of those people, asking for Jesus' grace falls on deaf ears.

As for the good people go to heaven, bad people go to hell, that one's a duh! I mean you don't want to be rubbing elbows with John Wayne Gacy and Pol Pot in heaven. We assume that a just God rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked or there's kind of no point.