Green Gaia
Veteran Member
What is your religion and how much does your faith determine your view of the death penalty?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Death Penalty and Religion
- Thread starter Green Gaia
- Start date
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
What is the Catholic stance on the death penalty, Scott?
Mr Spinkles
Mr
The Catholic Church is definitely against the death penalty, as it does not respect the dignity of life. (Thanks, theology class!)
That seems uncalled for. No?Mr_Spinkles said:
In any event, I oppose the death penalty but resist classifying my world view as a 'faith'.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
LOL no Deut, this is what I meant to say: The death penalty does not respect the dignity of life. That is why the Catholic Church is against the death penalty.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Hello all,
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."
If you have any other questions about the Legitimate defense doctrine, please let me know.
Peace,
Scott
Maize said:
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."
If you have any other questions about the Legitimate defense doctrine, please let me know.
Peace,
Scott
Fra.Morelia
Member
This goes back to the entire problem of seperation of church and state. The death penalty is a legal issue, and unfortunately theology always seems to get sucked into it. Laws should be based on morality, not religion. IMO the good ol' death penalty is not so much to punish the transgressor as it is to make someone think long and bloody hard before they take someones life. Murder should be met with murder. You can lament all you wish about a rabid dog, but in the end you still put him down. Same with these murdering thugs. With a display of such behavior they reduce themselves below human consideration as far as I am concerned. If you can't play nicely with the civilized world, then we should allow ourselves a brief moment of barbarity to illuminate you on our stance on raping and killing.
Yea, I know it is a touch intolerant, but you don't discourage killers with time outs.
Yea, I know it is a touch intolerant, but you don't discourage killers with time outs.
What of the morality of Confucius, of the Buddhist, of the Taoist?SOGFPP said:
Also (to paraphrase Socrates), is an action moral because God approves, or does God approve because it is moral?
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Hiya Deut.
That goes for the group you listed above, IMO.....
I know it is tough to understand, but that's seems to be God's way......!
Even when he reveals himself, God remains a mystery beyond words:
"If you understood him, it would not be God"
(St. Augustine, Sermo 52, 6, 16: PL 38, 360 and Sermo 117, 3, 5: PL 38, 663).
Peace,
Scott
338 Nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God's word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history are rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun.
That goes for the group you listed above, IMO.....
Although I love a good "chicken vs. egg" argument from our good pal Socrates, moral law, and natural law are absolutes, not notions of good or evil "invented" in the mind of man.
I know it is tough to understand, but that's seems to be God's way......!
Even when he reveals himself, God remains a mystery beyond words:
"If you understood him, it would not be God"
(St. Augustine, Sermo 52, 6, 16: PL 38, 360 and Sermo 117, 3, 5: PL 38, 663).
Peace,
Scott
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil (Romans 13:1-4).
Feel free to give credit to whatever you please. I'm please to see you acknowledge the morality of nontheistic systems/philosophies. My concern is that, while the Jew will grant the righteous Confucian, Taoist, and Buddhist a place in heaven, the fundamentalist Christian will assign the same people to hell.SOGFPP said:
There is no such thing as existent beings.
There is a Being, who has life in Himself.
Humans, animals, plants, etc, all age and die
We are "becomings" , not Beings.
We all get older, change, and die.
Our life must come from One who has and is "Being".
". . . . .for in Him we live and move and exist (Acts 17:28)
There is a Being, who has life in Himself.
Humans, animals, plants, etc, all age and die
We are "becomings" , not Beings.
We all get older, change, and die.
Our life must come from One who has and is "Being".
". . . . .for in Him we live and move and exist (Acts 17:28)
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
Ok, this is a nice discussion about where morality comes from and that would be a great other thread (hint, hint), but let's get back on topic please... Religion and the Death Penalty, and how much influence that has on people's views on the subject.
Runt
Well-Known Member
Hard question. I may have actually answered it incorrectly (I said my "faith" completely influences my opinion). I have no particular religious faith, so perhaps I should have said my faith does NOT influence my opnion. However, I do have a worldview based upon the conglomeration of my personal (non-theistic) philosophies, so we'll pretend that is my "faith" and say that it COMPLETELY influences my opinion on the death penalty.
Call me sick, but I don't believe, as many of those who object to the death penalty do, that the human life is important no matter what. The only reason we keep murders alive is because we believe that despite their crime, their life still has an inherent value. Well, I do not believe this; I think the right to live is earned, and thus the value of a human life is directly related to what they are doing with that life. If individuals who are dangerous to society are using the time they have on this earth to kill other people, then I think should be eliminated rather than being given the opportunity to live the remainder of their life at the expense of law abiding, positively-contributing members of society.
However, oddly enough, I do not think that the death penalty should be allowed. This is because I think the justice system is flawed. Our justice system is subject to human error, and mistakes can and have been made. Instead of eliminating individuals who are harmful to society, the death penalty is instead sometimes capible of killing "good" people, who have earned (and can still continue earning) their right to live by contributing positively to society. So, I think the death penalty should be abolished in all states, for innocent lives are being destroyed.
Call me sick, but I don't believe, as many of those who object to the death penalty do, that the human life is important no matter what. The only reason we keep murders alive is because we believe that despite their crime, their life still has an inherent value. Well, I do not believe this; I think the right to live is earned, and thus the value of a human life is directly related to what they are doing with that life. If individuals who are dangerous to society are using the time they have on this earth to kill other people, then I think should be eliminated rather than being given the opportunity to live the remainder of their life at the expense of law abiding, positively-contributing members of society.
However, oddly enough, I do not think that the death penalty should be allowed. This is because I think the justice system is flawed. Our justice system is subject to human error, and mistakes can and have been made. Instead of eliminating individuals who are harmful to society, the death penalty is instead sometimes capible of killing "good" people, who have earned (and can still continue earning) their right to live by contributing positively to society. So, I think the death penalty should be abolished in all states, for innocent lives are being destroyed.
civilcynic
Member
I oppose the death penalty for several reasons....some moral, some practical. The judicial system is extremely biased system (unfortunately).... Individuals that can afford excellent legal representation (ie OJ Simpson) have a much better chance of
avoiding the death penalty and in some cases, jail itself whether they are guilty of the crime or not. Those that do not have access to high priced lawyers, private investigators, etc; are at a distinct diadvantage and may end up in jail or on death row whether they are guilty or not. In fact, recently there have been a number of inmates on death row that have been found to be innocent...often because of new crime technology like DNA. Does anyone think that there is an acceptible margin of error for death row inmates? Is it an acceptible loss to kill even one innocent man?
Death row cases are agonizingly lengthy and expensive with appeal after appeal, legal motion after legal motion. It does not provide closure to victim's families for years sometimes decades with the family having to relive the tragedy over and over and over again at great emotional cost.
The financial cost of death row inmates and their cases far exceeds the expense of allowing the individual to remain incarcerated for the rest of their lives without a chance for parole.
One last note: What countries share our zest for the death penalty........Arab countries such as Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt; Asian countries such as China, Vietnam, both Koreas; African countries; Cuba and most Carribean Countries to name a few. Doesn't it seem odd that the most advanced and civilized countries of the world, with the exception of the US no longer have the death penalty?
avoiding the death penalty and in some cases, jail itself whether they are guilty of the crime or not. Those that do not have access to high priced lawyers, private investigators, etc; are at a distinct diadvantage and may end up in jail or on death row whether they are guilty or not. In fact, recently there have been a number of inmates on death row that have been found to be innocent...often because of new crime technology like DNA. Does anyone think that there is an acceptible margin of error for death row inmates? Is it an acceptible loss to kill even one innocent man?
Death row cases are agonizingly lengthy and expensive with appeal after appeal, legal motion after legal motion. It does not provide closure to victim's families for years sometimes decades with the family having to relive the tragedy over and over and over again at great emotional cost.
The financial cost of death row inmates and their cases far exceeds the expense of allowing the individual to remain incarcerated for the rest of their lives without a chance for parole.
One last note: What countries share our zest for the death penalty........Arab countries such as Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt; Asian countries such as China, Vietnam, both Koreas; African countries; Cuba and most Carribean Countries to name a few. Doesn't it seem odd that the most advanced and civilized countries of the world, with the exception of the US no longer have the death penalty?
i have always looked apon religon as commonsense. i feel that when someone does something wrong that they should be punished according to their crime. take the islamic countries for example, when women walk down the street, they walk with out having to look over their shoulders with worry of rape or theft. the men know full and well that if a woman cries for help, men will come and the wrong doer will be beat down or killed for his crime. it is as simple as that. they are taken care of right then and there. there is not months or years in jail. if a murder takes place, the murderer has to either pay off the family of the victim or his/her life is taken. again it is as simple as that. the point that this relays is the same that is written in the holy quran, you will be punished for your crimes as one should.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
well, my religion doesn't have much to say about the death penalty per say. It was common practice to kill enemies of one sort or another for many nations. Some crimes were punnishable by death, such as murder. Granted we had some nasty ways of killing people we didn't like. (never **** off an Iroquois especally a Mohawk. 
)
Some punnishments such as Banishment were close enough to death sentances.
Personally in todays world and the way it is abused, I do not generally agree with the death penalty. It is too often fickle for my tastes, and the system is slanted against the poor who can't afford fancy lawers. But then that is my opinion.
My state (New Hampsire, USA) has the death penalty but we haven't used it for more than 30 years. We basically keep it around in case of 'treason' and to annoy our neighbors.
I'm not sure anyone still knows how to tie the right knots... we still use hanging.
wa:do
)Some punnishments such as Banishment were close enough to death sentances.
Personally in todays world and the way it is abused, I do not generally agree with the death penalty. It is too often fickle for my tastes, and the system is slanted against the poor who can't afford fancy lawers. But then that is my opinion.
My state (New Hampsire, USA) has the death penalty but we haven't used it for more than 30 years. We basically keep it around in case of 'treason' and to annoy our neighbors.
I'm not sure anyone still knows how to tie the right knots... we still use hanging.
wa:do