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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It is not incorrect. If Gorsuch had voted differently it would have been 5-4 against.
Why is that so difficult to see?
Tom
FYI eye for an eye is not the Golden rule, it was used by the pagans surrounding Israel and was used as an example of an unjust rule.
Why do you place this on one man, like the OP suggests?
Because they are not the subject of the OP.Why do you not blame the other four that voted the same?
Yes, but nevertheless it is a very delicate issue. Truly, what difference does it really make in your daily life if the killer of a loved one is dead or behind bars? You have no contact with them either way, dwelling on the past in an emotional disaster, and nothing can really ever amend that you lost a loved one. It's not like a broken window that can have a monetary value and objectively be stated to have an equal or greater, or lesser even, value of the cost related to replacing the window to call justice and restore lost property. Such a thing is simply just impossible with someone murdered. You already lost a loved one, why wish it upon another?But isn't the purpose of punishment the suppression of vendettas and feuds? As long as the public has confidence that the state will extract vengeance, public order is maintained. The state doesn't really care weather the convict is guilty or not. So long as the impression of state vengeance is maintained, public ire is assuaged and everyone's happy.
Eye for and eye and the Golden Rule contradict each other. An eye for an eye is returning violence with violence, the Golden Rule is listening and attempting to understand and hearing the offender's side of the story, just as you would wish. A single mother stealing food for her children, under "eye for an eye" she likely looses her hand. Under the Golden Rule, she would be given food so that she doesn't have to steal again.I simply believe in an eye for an eye. Call it vengeance. Call it whatever you like. It's a spin on the golden rule which is my main philosophy.
True, but ultimately a prison sentence can be ended, whereas an execution cannot in anyway be undone.Locking one life away can be said to be one too many in the prison cell.
It's not always that easy. If your choices are go hungry or steal food, many, many, many people are going to steal food. They'll rationalize their theft to themselves long before they let themselves starve to death.Let's walk back through our steps and simply suggest that criminals simply don't do their crimes and they won't face punishment no matter how severe it is.
I'm not a fan of the golden rule. More of a platinum rule person. Involves less projecting ones value (what I would want done to me is not what other people woukd want) empathy rather than sympathy. Even still, I look at the hard core reciprocal justice systems like Hammurabi and I can only think of an old Graham quote from the Canadian parliment:I simply believe in an eye for an eye. Call it vengeance. Call it whatever you like. It's a spin on the golden rule which is my main philosophy. If I was ever in doubt about the ethics of a situation, I always turn to the golden rule. It hasn't failed me.
If one is going to take a life, then they should have absolutely have no problem forfeiting their own.
This is my reasoning. I wouldn't call it being emotional but if you think it is, that's fine.
And I feel that is true both because eye for an eye is escalating and because it assumes an inerrancy of the system that concludes guilt, which I do not have confidence in. And I have a much greater respect for the Norwegian prison system which is focused not on retributitive justice or 'getting what's coming but focused around rehabilitation and community service.We can argue all we like, but if capital punishment is being inflicted on some man, we are inclined to say: ‘It serves him right.’ That is not the spirit, I believe, in which legislation is enacted. If in this present age we were to go back to the old time of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ there would be very few hon. gentlemen in this House who would not, metaphorically speaking, be blind and toothless
Correct, the SCOTUS is conservative dominated. All 5 pro-lifers allowed the execution given the circumstances involved.I do believe that the vote was 5 to 4 to allow the execution to continue; therefore was it not 5 justices that allowed the execution to go through.
Is this a rhetorical question or do you really find this strange?What I find strange is why this vote is divided along party lines?
What else would you expect from politicians in robes.Correct, the SCOTUS is conservative dominated. All 5 pro-lifers allowed the execution given the circumstances involved.
The SCOTUS has been a conservative majority for decades, that's dangerous. Never put the bible before the constitution.
What I find strange is why this vote is divided along party lines?
Yes, but nevertheless it is a very delicate issue. Truly, what difference does it really make in your daily life if the killer of a loved one is dead or behind bars? You have no contact with them either way, dwelling on the past in an emotional disaster, and nothing can really ever amend that you lost a loved one. It's not like a broken window that can have a monetary value and objectively be stated to have an equal or greater, or lesser even, value of the cost related to replacing the window to call justice and restore lost property. Such a thing is simply just impossible with someone murdered. You already lost a loved one, why wish it upon another?
Because they are not the subject of the OP.
If Gorsuch had voted differently the decision would have been the opposite. It was a poor decision and he made it as much as anyone. Far more so than most people, especially the 4 opposing justices.
Why do you partisans keep wanting to talk about everything and everyone except Trump?
Tom
I'm not a fan of the golden rule. More of a platinum rule person. Involves less projecting ones value (what I would want done to me is not what other people woukd want) empathy rather than sympathy. Even still, I look at the hard core reciprocal justice systems like Hammurabi and I can only think of an old Graham quote from the Canadian parliment:
And I feel that is true both because eye for an eye is escalating and because it assumes an inerrancy of the system that concludes guilt, which I do not have confidence in. And I have a much greater respect for the Norwegian prison system which is focused not on retributitive justice or 'getting what's coming but focused around rehabilitation and community service.
The golden rule is do unto others AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU, in other words if you were unjustly accused of murder, or even guilty of murder would you want to be put to death, or would you want leniency, then so you should do unto others as well.
Yes, but nevertheless it is a very delicate issue. Truly, what difference does it really make in your daily life if the killer of a loved one is dead or behind bars? You have no contact with them either way, dwelling on the past in an emotional disaster, and nothing can really ever amend that you lost a loved one. It's not like a broken window that can have a monetary value and objectively be stated to have an equal or greater, or lesser even, value of the cost related to replacing the window to call justice and restore lost property. Such a thing is simply just impossible with someone murdered. You already lost a loved one, why wish it upon another?
Eye for and eye and the Golden Rule contradict each other. An eye for an eye is returning violence with violence, the Golden Rule is listening and attempting to understand and hearing the offender's side of the story, just as you would wish. A single mother stealing food for her children, under "eye for an eye" she likely looses her hand. Under the Golden Rule, she would be given food so that she doesn't have to steal again.
Why would this be a political decision concerning execution? It has to be related to something other than pro-life?Is this a rhetorical question or do you really find this strange?
I apply this simple ethic to the supporters of capital punishment.If someone is willing to kill, then that someone should accept being killed.
Not talking to you any more until you actually reply to my comments. Otherwise, I find it a bit rude. If you're going to place someone on your ignore list, then do it the right way. Just saying...