talkpolitics | Religion and the death penalty.

Entry tags:

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

"Scripture" is not the same as "religion". The fault in your argument is that you have confused the two.
Most Christians don't follow the Christian scriptures and see no need to.

No, that's actually the point I was making. The failure to actually study scripture is precisely one of the reasons I just cited for attachment to "folk" versions of Christianity.

study of scripture won't always result in the same conclusions.

No, there will certianly be room for disagreement. But it's a good place to at least start. And a well-directed study of scripture will certainly prevent one from making assertions about God sending people who do bad things to hell when they die.

also, are you saying that most Christians are practicing a "folk version of the religion"?

I don't have statistical basis for quantifying this. But it certainly seems as though American evangelicalism is a "folk" version of Christianity with little connection to its 2000 years of established orthodoxy.

Ah, I knew we agreed, it's just the terms :D

Yeah, let's see if the OP wants to continue dialog or not. The last thing I asked him was what the name "Jesus" means.

I know it seems bizarre -- but sometimes, when attempting to understand Christianity, a good starting point can be the person of the Christ.

Weird theology! :P

That's probably for the best. Religions change over time-- in some time periods they have changed more than in others. (Also, I'm a she not a he.)

No, I doubt very much that it's "for the best" that Christianity would turn into something that neither the Christ nor His apostles would recognize as the truth.

This is not to say that the Church should in no way respond to certain changes in its environment -- but the abandonment of the basic tenets of the faith Jesus and His apostles taught is not a good thing.

Christ would recognize it... his apostles might not. Don't be fooled in to thinking that evangelicals, or progressive Christians don't have any core doctrine. The priesthood of all believers ensures we don't ever lose our connection with God, as long as we are honest in our faith. Many are not and try to rationalize... everything. I'm probably not exempt from that-- but it is just as easy to do with more elaborate prescripts doctrine as it is with less.

I never said that evangelicals or "progressive Christians" (whatever that means) have no core doctrine. I'm saying that certain asp;ects of their core doctrine is egregiously false. Your assertions in the OP are particularly glaring.

I am glad that you seem to have at least partially retracted one problematic aspect of your original formulation -- but you don't seem to want to address the more egregious problems in your assertion.

And, no, Jesus would not countenance the flagrantly false teaching that God sends sinners to hell and the righteous to heaven because of His perfect "justice."

As for the apostles, see Acts 2:42.

I'm saying that certain asp;ects of their core doctrine is egregiously false.

Which ones? Some of thing you have said about evangelicals are false.

Acts 2:42? Can you help me understand what you are getting at with that?

No, I have not said anything false about evangelicals. In fact, you continue to prove my point.

Notice that Acts 2:42 makes reference to the apostles' doctrine. So any rejection of the apostles' doctrine is a rejection of the Church that Christ is building.

I'm saying that certain asp;ects of their core doctrine is egregiously false.

Which ones?

So any rejection of the apostles' doctrine is a rejection of the Church that Christ is building.

When I said the apostles might not recognize it, I said that because they are men and it's been a long time. Jesus would.

Which ones?

Certainly the very one you've presented to us here: a cross-less salvation.

When I said the apostles might not recognize it, I said that because they are men and it's been a long time.

What would that have to do with anything? They wouldn't recognize what you wrote in the OP because it doesn't bear any resemblance to what they taught.

Certainly the very one you've presented to us here: a cross-less salvation.

I don't know where you are getting this from.

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

pastorlenny.livejournal.com - 2010-03-09 06:01 (UTC) - Expand

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

futurebird.livejournal.com - 2010-03-09 06:07 (UTC) - Expand

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

pastorlenny.livejournal.com - 2010-03-09 06:38 (UTC) - Expand

It's all Christianity.

So quackery is also "medicine?" And organized crime is also a "business?"

Nice try, but no, you don't get to decide whose belief in invisible sky fairies is most legit.

I didn't claim such authority. But if you're unable to distinguish between "invisible sky fairies" and "the Triune God," then I suppose you're not actually up for a serious conversation on the topic.

Your version of Christianity is no better or more accurate than anyone eles's. It doesn't matter that you happen to believe in it or have fancy names for it.

That's a rather absurd statement. Are you seriuosly saying that if someone claimed that God was four persons -- Moe, Larry, Shemp, and Gaga -- their "version of Christianity would be as "accurate" as that taught by the apostle John?

Accurate as in true, or accurate as in consistent with the written Gospels (which were, of course, likely not written by their purported authors)?

Because I'm guessing you already know his answer to the former, and he doesn't care about the answer to the latter.

I meant "accurate" in whatever sense the other person was using it. The idea that there is are no doctrinal boundaries whatsoever by which "Christianity" can be understood is absurd on the face of it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only