We the people of South Dakota will kill a restrained, unarmed man tonight. At 10 p.m. in Sioux Falls, we will stick poison in a killer's veins and watch him die.
You know I find the death penalty a moral and practical failure. It's unnecessary, even for scum like Eric Robert. Unlike Governor Daugaard, if I had the chance to stop an unnecessary killing, I would.
But let's look at what some death-penalty supporters are saying to justify state-killing. In response to statements from the Catholic bishops of Sioux Falls and Rapid City opposing the death penalty, Sioux Falls resident offers KELO this undigested mass of moral relativism:
"I personally think it's an individual issue," Sioux Falls resident Mike Grossman said. "Everybody looks at things differently."
..."It's the law, I think we should follow the law," Grossman said.
...He believes the death penalty should be used on a case-by-case basis.
"I personally follow God, not what rules are made up on this earth for different people for different situations because sometimes those rules change depending on periods of time," Grossman said [David Brown, "Differing Viewpoints on Death Penalty," KELOLand.com, October 14, 2012].
I don't know Mike Grossman. I probably shouldn't come down too hard on him. He probably just got caught unprepared by a reporter asking him to grapple with a complicated moral and political issue. If Grossman did ad lib a coherent statement, it perhaps got chopped into incoherent soundbites in the video editing room.
But let's get clear: capital punishment is not an individual issue. It is a policy decision made by society. If Grossman really does think that "everybody looks at things differently," he ought to be taking the Joe Biden position of refusing to impose his moral position on others.
If Grossman was appealing to relativism to defend his views, he then abandons relativism and claims his support for the death penalty has the absolute support of God. The only place God seems to say, "Go ahead, kill bad guys" is the Old Testament... and somehow I get the impression that if Grossman is the type of guy to tell his bishops to jump in the lake, he's not the type to stone children, keep slaves, abstain from pork, and live by other literal Old Testament precepts.
Meanwhile, in Rapid City, a couple of other folks in the street take their wishful stabs at justifying state-sanction killing:
"I think it's an effective deterrent if used correctly," said Colista Lich of Rapid City.
"It probably causes some guys to lay off rather than commit a murder," Rapid City's Jim Albertson said [Chris Davis, "Controversy Looms as South Dakota Prepares for Robert Execution," KOTA TV, October 14, 2012].
Reporter Davis then proceeds to demolish this wishful thinking with empirical evidence:
"It has been proved out, ... the cost to put somebody to death in the end is greater than the cost of incarcerating someone for life," [Rapid City Bishop Robert] Gruss said.
Multiple studies back that up.
In 2003, the state of Kansas found capital cases cost 70 percent more than similar non-capital cases. In Texas, they're three times as expensive.
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have gotten rid of the death penalty altogether, and a 2010 public opinion poll found 61 percent of voters favor a punishment other than the death penalty for murder cases [Davis, 2012].
But let's not let facts get in the way of a good killing. We apparently need a good human sacrifice every now and then to satisfy our bloodlust.
My question is will the Right to Life people be there tonight against the execution?
Roger Hunt? Hello?
South Dakotans collude in torture every day. Has Robert donated his brain for research?
In 99.9% of cases, I am against the death penalty. In this case I am conflicted. Eric Robert's actions have given us three basic options as I seem them:
1) Lock him in solitary confinement(or some equivalent) until he dies.
2) Put him to death now.
3) Put him into the general prison population and let him commit "suicide by guard" or get some other prisoner to kill him - possibly hurting or killing someone else.
Option three is pretty well right out - we can't put guards or other prisoners at risk. Of the other two options, speaking frankly - I think putting him to death now is the kinder, more humane of the two options.
This isn't punishment. This isn't revenge. Much like dealing with a dangerous animal (say a dog with rabies) - we have the choice to lock him in a cage separated from all direct contact or end his life. I'm not sure what one is the best answer. If it were me, I'd want to have my life ended.
er...three basic options as I see them... :)
Cory, I'll give you some slack on this comment understanding from our previous interactions that the Bible isn't a book you have much time for: "The only place God seems to say, "Go ahead, kill bad guys" is the Old Testament...".
Actually, in Romans 13:1-5, it's real clear that until Jesus returns, God has established our governing authorities as his agents, his instruments to punish the wrongdoer even to the extent of bearing the sword. That passage says the governing authorities are "God's agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." These agents of God are deemed with the sobering responsibility of bringing justice - at least as much justice as is possible until he returns himself to right every wrong. If all that sounds harsh, consider that God ceases to be loving if he isn't just. His love fuels his justice.
Another important text to consider on this somber day is Ecclesiastes 8:11 -- "When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of people are filled with schemes to do wrong." That is referring to how, via the passage of time (endless appeals), compassion gets displaced, it gets shifted off the victim onto the murderer and when that happens justice is lost and that is wrong. That is why I support the Governor in his decision to execute justice today.
Another thing that is clear in the Bible is the difference between the shedding of judicially innocent blood and the shedding of judicially guilty blood. One is forbidden, the other is allowed but ONLY at the hands of these governing authorities. The doctrine of bloodguilt for the shedding of judicially innocent blood is throughout both the Old and the New Testaments.
How consistent are you willing to be in your abhorrence to the shedding of blood? Should a biological human being ever be executed for the crime of it's father?
Today is a sad day. No one should be happy. I was thankful to read yesterday that Eric Roberts was spending today fasting and the paper said that is because he is a Christian. We were praying he'd get right with God while he still had time. No one goes to hell for anything they've done; even murder. That place of eternal separation from God is reserved only for those who reject his Son and his offer of forgiveness. According to the paper, it looks like Eric Roberts has made peace with God and will spend eternity with him. To people who've spent a lifetime being good this hardly seems fair but here again, goodness isn't the ticket to eternity in paradise with God. Jesus the ticket. This parable comes to mind: Matthew 20:1-16. Even so, Eric Roberts making peace with God does not exempt him from reaping the consequences of what he has sown on earth. Apparently his last decision accepting Christ was his best decision and the most important one.
Another thing from a theological vantage point; the Bible teaches a first and a second death. Roberts faces the first death today; some of us face it earlier than others and for various reasons that relate to our own doing or due to unfortunate circumstances beyond our control. The second death, it appears, is not something Roberts will face as Jesus took that penalty for him. So today, we can thank God for that and should all reflect on our own standing before God.
"I had the chance to stop an unnecessary killing, I would"
Then defund Planned Parenthood.
Defund farmers: birth defects are forever.
Good post. All I can say from my perspective is nobody (especially government) should have the right to murder another person. Since this killing is done with malice and foresight it fits the definition of murder. As stated by many sources, capital punishment of this type is about revenge. Do we as a state really want to be in the revenge business? Do a Google search for "wrongful convictions death row texas" and you will see how well that works down south. Even if someone believes the death penalty is ok, will they feel that way the first time South Dakota kills a person found innocent later?
The thing I cannot stand on the death penalty issue is the hypocrisy of the "Pro-Life" groups. Where is the absolute outrage for the death penalty that rages on the abortion issue. I laugh at the quotes from the Argus you start with: "..."It's the law, I think we should follow the law," Grossman said." I wonder why these are not the same sentiments when it comes to evaluation of women's right to choose laws, or the ACA for that matter.
To me, the death penalty is another shining example (along with poverty and other quality of life issues) that shows the pick-and-choose nature of too many of the pro-lifer's philosophy.
The choice for any state to prosecute capital cases is a budgetary luxury that robs resources from public defenders: red state failure by any other name.
It actually me feel physically sick yesterday to see the headlines of the Argus Leader all about Roberts, and every Sioux Falls media website I look at reported what his last supper was Saturday. I wonder if anyone cares or stops to wonder what Ronald "R.J." Johnson had for HIS last meal before he went to work for his last shift before he was brutally murdered by this monster...
Nothing wrong with putting down a rapid dog.
to quote wayne gilbert: "there you have it, vox populi."
How hard is it for these guys to have just not killed someone in the first place?
They killed someone.
As per this model, we have yet to move past our collective irrational intuition on this issue. We will. But not by this afternoon, sadly. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/reasons-matter-when-intuitions-dont-object/
This morning... sorry.
DB he's not a dog.
Arguing that Eric Robert is not a person — a human being — is equally as irrational as arguing that a fertilized egg — moments after conception — is. What it reveals, perhaps accidentally, is that the distinction is for most of us entirely subjective and capricious.
I have a rapid dog. She's a greyhound retired from the Colorado tracks where she won or placed 35 times out of 82 races. She is not so rapid anymore, as she broke her foot jumping off the couch.
Aside from considering whether Ingrid the greyhound should be put down, I note that nothing converts people to agnosticism and atheism as effectively as the theological efforts to justify the death penalty. Paul's letter to the Romans supersedes Christ direct words.
And tonight we citizens of South Dakota can proudly strut forth as murderers in the name of justice. We can await the results of what killing this killer will do for his victim.
A "human being" who willfully and purposefully participated in suffocating and beating a prison guard (Ronald Johnson) to death. He also said at sentencing his only regret was not killing another guard.
BTW, a fetus' heart begins beating at week five just shortly after a woman discovers she's pregnant. She wouldn't know she was even pregnant before that, for anyone who believes a fertilized egg is not a person. That's my opinion and that's all I'm gonna say...
@ Steve Hickey- Just a question to clarify your position. Does Romans 13 1-5 also apply to the Government of Germany in the early 40s and similar Governments and if so would you have supported the decisions of those men who were authorities in the carrying out of their duties according to the law.
To me, the question isn't whether or not someone deserves to die - the question is, who deserves to wield the sword?
One must wonder, if we don't trust government in a democratic society (in other words, if we don't trust ourselves) to regulate business and commerce, or oversee the administration of health care, or handle the education of the next generations, why on earth would we trust government to decide who is worthy of death?
Well said Bill. That is the fallacy of the "pro-life" group that is also pro-death penalty (and anti-social welfare for that matter).
Here is what I don't understand, how people criss-cross the issue of the death penalty and abortion. Pastor H, you quote the Bible in your post, Which is man's word. What about God's word? "Thou shall not kill." I guess if I'm debating the issue in my head, I'm going with God, not man. So I'm not killing. And we all know your stance on abortion, which is consistant with not killing.
On the flip side, Corey, you advocate a pro-choice position on abortion, but are anti death penalty. I have trouble grasping that position, since the unborn have done nothing against society, but yet a person who has done an evil deed gets a pass on death.
The only 2 positions that make sense are 1) Kill the babies and criminals or 2) Save the babies and keep the bad guys alive. Criss crossing the two issues cannot be done, either you kill things, or you don't.
On a side note, Pastor I like your Facebook cover photo. About a 5 minute drive from my house!
Barry - we submit to governing authorities until the governing authorities starts breaking God's laws or asking us to break God's higher laws. That is not the case here - the governing authorities are not breaking God's laws or asking us to do so. You can quote "thou shalt not kill" but there you have the Hebrew word for murder and this is not that. There are two important Hebrew words: Ratsach in the fifth commandment and Nakah in a passage like Exodus 21:12 where we actually see both words: "anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death." One death is murder (forbidden) and the other death is just (permissible).
In the case of Germany under Hitler - I'd point you to what I wrote in my Sermon on the Mount book about the dilemma this was for Bonhoeffer. He ultimately concluded that stopping the shedding of judicially innocent blood was the higher ethic.
There is no contradiction between Jesus and Paul on this issue. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus was not speaking to governing authorities, he was speaking to people - to individuals. The governing authorities have a different role than the role we have in society.
Bill - when does a person become a person and who made you judge that a developing baby isn't a person? Science says they ARE biologically human beings from the moment of conception. So I'm asking for consistency from those who support abortion and oppose the death penalty... is it ok to execute a person for their father's crime?
Why is it so hard to see the difference between an innocent baby and a convicted killer? It's very clear in the Bible... judicially innocent blood being shed is very different than judicially guilty blood that is shed by governing authorities.
A fetus has no civil rights until the third trimester. Convicts lose civil rights through judicial review: big difference.
Although I agree with your pro life thoughts and statements Rev, I fear you may live long enough to deal with the consequence of a government given the choice of whom to execute and who deserves life.
I also feel no mercy for the killer and believe life in solitary darkness would be much worse than death.
"I cannot stand on the death penalty issue is the hypocrisy of the "Pro-Life" groups."
The guy had due process, the aborted do not.
i can't wait to fly a drone over yer house, les.
Steve: "The guy had due process, the aborted do not."
If that is the case, then that is not a pro-life position. By all means use the legal system as a justification for the stand, by I do not recognize this as Pro-life. As many conservatives, this is a anti-abortion AND pro-death penalty stand. The second part denies the pro-life umbrella.
Just as I also believe denial to basic health care is not pro-life, yet a position many conservative "pro-life" people are willing to take.
I understand the TRUE pro-life position. The exceptions sect is sophistry and inaccurate labeling.
Robert made choices knowing the consequences of his actions: he is committing suicide by cop rather than losing his humanity in a cell.
A Republican world is one where life begins at conception but citizenship does not.
I wonder if Pope John Paul II were to talk with Governor Daugaard the same way that he talked with Missouri Governor Carnahan in 1999 to commute the death penalty of a triple murderer if we would see a similar outcome.
John Paul II also said, "I appeal to the people to end death penalty which is cruel and unnecessary, even in case a person who has done great evil."
Like I said Steve, your distinctions are subjective and capricious. You've not offered any evidence to the contrary. But, just curious, where do you stand on the concept of "original sin."
Rev. Hickey,
I do have use for the Bible. I still believe that the death penalty is immoral. Further as practiced in the United States it is unscriptural. Deuteronomy 17:6 states, “On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness†(NIV). If you prefer the KJV, “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.†Death rows across the nation are filled with people convicted solely on circumstantial evidence or on coerced confessions. The work of the Innocence Project has made that fact readily apparent.
Further, Jeremiah 22 contains an injunction that kings or governments ought not shed innocent blood. Other commenters have made the point that the US has probably executed innocents. I’m not willing to risk active participation in the state killing innocents
At a more general level, the death penalty is a form of vengeance designed to appease the greater good, I do my best personally to live out the injunction: “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.†I expect fellow Christians who claim that the government is based on Biblical teachings to do the same.
Cory’s absolutely correct; executions are expressions of bloodlust. As my more learned and eloquent colleague, Steve O’Brien, has pointed out, a consistent pro-life position in the US should involve abolition of the death penalty.
Rev. Hickey's party talks free market yet votes consistently to restrict choices of insurance coverage:
https://www.thisispersonal.org/these-states-you-cant-buy-insurance-covers-abortion-1
LK- your thoughtful reply is appreciated. I have interest in and respect for The Innocence Project. I worked with them a couple years ago on some DNA legislation I think is necessary in SD. It is true there have been situations where the innocent are convicted. What is also true is that we have a very thorough judicial appeals process and it's a jury of peers who stand in witness against the convicted. We can't suspend all justice until it can be assured there won't ever be a time when an innocent person is convicted. The death penalty is reserved for situations where there is no remaining doubt.
Jeremiah 22 relates to governments that shed INNOCENT blood. That's not what we are talking about here.
The passage "it is mine to avenge" means vigilante justice is prohibited. Again, Romans 13 says governing authorities are the vengeance of God, not us as citizens.
I chose not to take issue with Cory on his use of the term "bloodlust" to describe those who are pro-death penalty. He remembers how it felt in the past when I'd use strong terms - drunk on the blood of innocents - to speak of those who are pro-abortion. He felt that was too strong then, perhaps he'll realize "bloodlust" is certainly not what we are feeling today. This is not revenge. It's justice. Big difference.
Besides, sending Eric Robert home to Jesus was a real bargain this go 'round.
LK, just because the justice system is human and full of errors, does not make the death penalty immoral.
"If that is the case, then that is not a pro-life position."
Yes it is. There is the difference between innocence of the pre-born vs the quilty.
quilty: the state of being stitched together for the purpose of quiltiness. Fully raveled.
Steve Sibson,
If one operates under the maxim that one should not shed innocent blood, then maintaining a "justice system [that] is human and full of errors" does indeed make the death penalty immoral, Knowingly supporting and maintaining a system that kills innocents, even if it is only a few, is immoral. Please don't go down the ridiculous path that most of them must have been guilty of something else. There's little doubt that people have been put to death for crimes they did not commit.
Steve Hickey,
I need more time to respond to your reply. I have some essays that the young'uns expect me to grade, so I'll do that first.
Larry,
Since it applies loosely to the discussion at hand. I recommend this short stories about quilts and murder: http://www.learner.org/interactives/literature/story/fulltext.html
I believe that this quilt was going to be "knotted"
As Pastor Hickey points out verses to provide a Biblical support of the death penalty, we should also remember that God, through His word in the Bible, also applies the death penalty to the following:
The Bible prescribes the death penalty for the following activities, among others:
Murder
Adultery
Working on the Sabath
Bestiality
Rape
A betrothed woman who does not cry out while being raped
A woman who is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night (guys are OK though?)
Worshiping other gods
Witchcraft (Be careful this haloween)
Taking the Lord's name in vain or cursing his name.
Cursing a parent
Kidnapping
I have not really seen a good discussion of why religious leaders have found justification to ignore certain verses and fervently ascribe to others.
I get frustrated that in the discussion of the death penalty, some use the scripture verses like a drunk uses a lamp post...more for support than illumination.
"Knowingly supporting and maintaining a system that kills innocents, even if it is only a few, is immoral."
That would be abortion. We have no choice but to support systems that are human and full of errors. I misapplied death penalty should be treated with total nonsupport. A properly applied death penalty, with due process, is just and is moral. To equate the morality of a misapplied occurrence and a properly applied occurrence is not logical. Based on that illogic, we have no jails, we have not justice...we have total anarchy and survival of the fittest.
But let's get clear: capital punishment is not an individual issue. It is a policy decision made by society.
You're right, its not.
Just like the killing of a fetus is not an individual issue.
UNLIKE abortion, capital punishment is the death of a guilty and morally culpable entity.
Drew,
You lost me here. Are you saying that we as a society are requiring the deaths of unborn children? I thought the US allowed the individual choice but never made that action a requirement.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.
The weeping, the wailing, the gnashing o' teeth
Makes me quilty all over
Nothing is sacred: that's my belief.
Drew is right.
Capital punishment is a policy decision embraced by societies and governments like China, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, the Palestinian Authority, North Korea, Yemen, Syria Zimbabwe and of course...The United States of America.
Good company, huh.
Sibby,
Love the slippery slope fallacy, if we abandon the death penalty, then we'll have to abandon all punishment, and then .... I don't know dogs and cats living together? Human sacrifice? (paraphrased from Ghostbusters. Figured I should give a source since a search for plagiarism brought me on the web before I planned to.)
I’m fine with life imprisonment and prison sentences for violent offenses. The fact is that the death penalty is unique. If one is falsely imprisoned, the state can reimburse them for lost time. It may not be a full reckoning for the person’s suffering, but it’s a start. An innocent person who is executed cannot be brought back to life. Knowing that risk, it’s difficult to see a moral underpinning for a situation fraught with emotion and error.
Humans are fallen creatures. It’s best for all if we leave the business of life and death to the Almighty.
Sometimes the Bible is confusing and confounding, even to Biblical Scholars.
Kind of like the verses Pastor Steve brings up in Romans "...God has established our governing authorities as his agents, his instruments to punish the wrongdoer even to the extent of bearing the sword."
So bureaucracies are divined by God and their regulations to keep businesses from being "wrongdoers" are also God's tools? ;-)
"I’m fine with life imprisonment and prison sentences for violent offenses."
Even for those who did not do the crime?
Jana - The answer to your question... why it seems some Biblical laws/punishments are ignored and others are not... lies in understanding the differences between and the purposes of the various types of law in the Bible; moral, civil and ceremonial - -- AND in the fact that the Torah (law) was given during the days when God was Israel's King.
While God's moral law remains in each age, civil law changes from society to society. ((And ceremonial law all pointed to Jesus and he perfectly fulfilled ceremonial law - so, no need for sacrifices anymore and the meticulous keeping of things like ceremonial cleansings, etc.))
As you point out, many of these moral and civil laws drew the harshest punishment in the days of Theocracy as God had a zero-tolerance policy toward rebellion and immorality. These uber-strict punishments for a variety of offenses made it very clear God is Holy and expects us to be like him - and these laws revealed his nature. His laws primarily protect people, and secondarily they prohibited people and punished people. When we read these laws today we need to realize how precious to him is life, marriage, purity, etc. By punishing violators with death, he was making the point life as God intended is to be strictly protected. These strict punishments were intended to deal decisively with cancers that left alone would ruin the rest of society. Even then however, there was fairness... eye for eye, tooth for tooth. And there are many places in the Old Testament where God had mercy.
Key point here: as people chose earthly rulers instead of God to be their King, people became subject to the laws of the earthly King. Sometimes these laws were much more harsh, however today they certainly are not.
In our day, in relegating order-keeping to earthly administrations God has made us subject to those civil laws. God's moral laws remain but the consequences for breaking them are determined by the statutes where the crimes are committed and we don't abide by the punishments he called for in the days of the Theocracy.
which is exactly why people in the religion business should not be making laws.
Larry - haha. We've gone over this before. Someone's worldview and moral basis will determines our public policy for our children and grandchildren, the only question is whose? Will we continue to shift off the Judeo-Christian foundation of our nation's founding and go the way of what??
bringing monotheism to the slaves and indians one rape at time, rev.
If we are going to use or argue religion on this issue, how can the short life of your religion compare at all to the original church of my religion pastor Hickey.
Is your small circle that much more enlightened than my Catholic circle?
Careful now, we also both support life for the unborn, no inconsistencies in our thought of life for all being the highest order of protection.
Come on Larry - open your eyes to a macro-reality... if we were to divide the entire world into Christian and Non-Christian nations (sheep and goats) - where are people, and women especially, brutally oppressed?? Answer: not in the Christian nations.
There are nearly 150 Christian nations. I use the term loosely of course but I'm talking about where Christianity is the dominant religion and there is true freedom of religion. And which religion was it that fueled abolition? Yep, we have some dark chapters (the Native American chapter for example) and much to repent of, but the bottom line is that the Judeo-Christian value system has brought the world it's greatest things.
And you want to jettison it and replace it with what?
it's 4:20
Mr. Hickey, what are your religious credentials? Do you have a Masters of Divinity? Are you fluent in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin? Or are you merely the product of a bible college?
Les - my small circle? You must be going by membership numbers verses people who actually faithfully attend? But let's go with membership numbers: there are 1.1 billion Catholics worldwide, and 801 million Protestants. Hardly small circle. And fyi, Protestants would argue they are in fact the ancient torchbearers all the way back to apostolic days because they were the faithful remnant within the Church when the RCC had lost it's way. The main issue as I see it is Catholics place authority in Church and Tradition (which has changed drastically over the years) and Protestants place authority in the Bible (which hasn't changed). So, all that is contentious and arguable depending upon which tradition you are in.
About 30 years ago, during a conversation with a cop that was a really good family friend, we got to discussing the death penalty and his reasoning was that for him, life without parole would be worse than the death penalty. He said stop and think about never being able to go fishing or hunting again. Never being able to see your kids graduate from high school/college, not being able to see them get married and never being able to hold your grandkids, etc.
Winston - I have an M.Div. and I keep up only with my Greek. I attended 3 seminaries (North Park Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Fuller Theological Seminary) - two in pursuit of a D.Min which I have not completed. My interest shifted to a PhD and so that is on my radar and not so much a D.Min.. I was ordained by the Evangelical Covenant Church of America. I teach Bible in a Bible School in Greece in the fall and spring of each year.
The UN is crawling all over the West right now as it investigates treaty rights: the vivisection of South Dakota would warm the cockles of my heart, fer sure.
Statehood for the tribes, Mexico, and Quebec.
"...the bottom line is that the Judeo-Christian value system has brought the world it's greatest things." Not even close. Not in my opinion, Steve.
But let's explore it.
What in your opinion are the top 5 "Greatest Things in the World?"
Sibby,
Read the whole comment before you reply. I'll try to make this one brief. Humans err. Because humans err, one should try to avoid committing or sanctioning errors for which restitution cannot be made. The state can give someone who has been falsely imprisoned money to compensate for lost time. That compensation will be imperfect and incomplete but it's a start. One cannot bring restore life an innocent person whom the state has erroneously killed.
Rev. Hickey,
I realize that Christianity has a rather ambivalent relationship with the death penalty. It was, after all, a Roman death penalty applied to an innocent that gave the salvation that Christians hope for and believe in.
I’m also certain that you and I can trade Bible passages and explications until our fingers bleed on our respective keyboards and still not convince each other about the death penalty. I always get a bit troubled by selective reading of scripture and the selective interpretations about which passages are to be taken literally and which should be abandoned as symbolic. It also seems that people selective choose which “jots and tittles†have become inoperative. For example, I believe neither of us would want to support perpetual servitude even though the Bible sets up procedures for it. Those procedures seem more than ceremonial
I believe that we both agree that we currently see through the glass darkly on all matters. That fact alone, as I have implied in a couple of other posts, is enough to give me pause about the death penalty. Innocent people have been put to death. The state should be allowed to send innocents to the death chamber. You correctly point out. The men in the situation at hand have admitted their guilt, but as Cory and Larry have stated, that admission seems to an effort at suicide by other means not an effort to acknowledge wrong. I’m not sure where your denomination stands on suicide but many view it as a form of self-slaughter akin to murder.
Finally, on a philosophical level, it seems clear that the US is one of the more violent nations on the face of the Earth despite our Christian proclamations. The relationship between the people and the institutions they create seems symbiotic. The attitudes of the people are reflected in the institutions and the institutions further the attitudes of the people that created them. Perhaps one spot to make the nation a bit less violent would be to end the death penalty.
Larry,
Did you add Quebec just to make our French teacher host happy?
Why Puerto Rico won't be the 51st State, part n:
http://politic365.com/2012/10/08/puerto-rico-votes-on-status-a-primer-on-independence/
Rev. Hickey and his weird little buddies in the legislature will be facing water law, the state's environmental responsibilities, the ACLU, and nine really angry tribes during the session as it defends itself against its budgetary commitment to mass incarcerations in the name of "Corrections."
I want to puke.
LK, I appreciate much of that except a point or two.
My view of America is that we have made life better for much of the world and shed American blood to make life much better elsewhere. With the exception of Rahm's Chicago, ;-) , I disagree we are among the more violent nations. They just shot 30 Christian college students in Northern Nigeria and globally people are being butchered by the hundreds of thousands every year. My view of our military is that our actions have been precise and with purpose - not all of the time, but much of the time. I've not in favor of all of Obama's wars and I know there are many examples of collateral damage but the world needs to thank God for America because we have been a great blessing.
On suicide, no I don't see in the Bible that being a mortal sin. My experience with it as a police chaplain (it happens all the time in SF) is that a person succumbs to a moment of insanity (not thinking clearly) and it's as forgivable as anything else. Again, we aren't separated from God for eternity because of things we did wrong. God doesn't judge us for our weakest moment or worst deed.
Bill, I'd think there are studies more current but the classic study on your question is answered in a very long and very old book: James Dennis wrote "Christian Missions and Social Progress" in 1899. It's 1200 pages in three volumes and it tells a long long long story of social improvement where the primary impetus has been Christianity.
Our good works and development charities have meant life and a better quality life to countless millions. People and societies stopped sacrificing their children and abusing their wives. I have no particular order in these but you asked for five of the main contributions; 1) education, language, literature, art 2) healthcare, care for the suffering, generosity 3) role in science and scientific method, and inductive and deductive thinking 4) freedom, dignity and respect for all people, especially women - a uniquely Christian thing 5) Christian contributions to law and morality unparalleled with anything else.
Have you read How the Irish Saved Civilization? I like all the Cahill books.
Christianity gets blamed for a lot and the truth is the world would be a sorry place had Jesus never graced it and raised up people to carry on his mission. When will people turn against Islam like they do against Christianity? Islam has no good fruit, at all. Yet I understand, Jesus said he'd be a stumbling stone for people.
We are far off topic here, perhaps we should stay on point.
We're not off-topic at all: Eric Robert is a product of American greed, pure unadulterated Capitalism gone off the rails.
http://interested-party.blogspot.com/2012/05/willard-signs-of-2012.html
Mr. Hickey, thank you for your full cooperation with my question. The reason I asked those questions was because my elder brother was an ordain Lutheran pastor, who was trained in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek and a graduate of a Lutheran seminary where he acquired a Masters of Divinity. He was fourteen years older than me, and he confirmed me into the Lutheran faith, actually. He tragically died before his time at age 39 from cancer. But for the years that I knew him, he often impressed upon me the difference between a proclaimed theologian from the seminaries versus the bible colleges. He also stressed the need for any proclaimed member of the clergy to have a good understanding of the original writings of the Bible's books, which can only be achieved if one has read the original manuscripts written in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin.
However, regardless of how you interpret the Bible and regardless to what extent your religious education maybe, I as a Christian do not believe the Bible is a political document or treaties to justify or promote a particular public policy. The teachings of Jesus Christ should help to form your own moral code, but not be used to impose your beliefs or priorities upon others.
The greatest lesson to be learned from the life of Jesus Christ is tolerance and when you use the Bible, and your interpretation of it, to justify public policy, you are forcing your priorities and beliefs upon others not with logic, but rather with the dogma of a religion. Often Christian fundamentalist will argue that the Ten Commandments should be on display at your local courthouse because it is a historic document which promoted and formed our modern moral codes of civility. But what these fundamentalists do not understand or want to admit is that these laws against acts like murder, stealing, and infidelity which appear to emulate the beliefs of Jews and Christians, may have been legislated with the hint of religious justification, but that was merely a political maneuver to legislate what was necessary to promote a civil society, and these are values which a non-believer can appreciate as well. Quoting the Bible to justify a public policy has no place in a society which believes in democratic principles, religious tolerance, and tolerance for all people regardless of their sex, orientation, creed (or lack of), or race.
I do have to admit that your reliance upon the Bible to justify a particular public policy does explain one thing to me, however. Many conservative politicians, like yourself Mr. Hickey, are obsessed with the fear of Sharia Law overtaking our judicial system. But this fear not only expresses a naivety towards the doctrine of the separation of church and state, when decreeing a judicial decision, it also shows how you live in a political world where you are unwilling to be tolerant in your ability to lead and represent your constituents in a way that is separate from the forcing of your religious beliefs upon others, which I think is unfortunate.
I do have one last question, however, Do you teach a bible class in Greek, or do you teach a bible class in Greece?
My thinking is I can't see the point in killing another person(that goes for unborns too). I think death in this case is the easy way out. I would rather see the inmate know that everyday he going to wake up to a day of hard labor and has nothing to look forward ever day other then getting up and working hard.
Rev. Hickey,
I should have said more violent than other nations that fall under the umbrella of "developed nations"
http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-country/
BP slaughtered an ecosystem: send it home to Jesus.
Thanks for your reply Steve.
So you are saying that God's moral law still stands for Christians? Especially the part about killing women who aren't virgins on their wedding night...and the whole Ryan/Akin/GOP theme of real rape and not crying out while being raped as a capital offense. Stone the girl...she didn't protest enough!!! That is the fairness you speak of?
You make the comment about Christian nations not oppressing women...the Bible is loaded with "God's moral laws" that if taken literally are not exactly respectful of women.
I mean, who can't like I Corinthians 14:34-35? You know, the one about women keeping their big yaps shut in church and to not ask questions except only to their husbands at home...so maybe the Bible studies with the "girls" at church aren't in keeping with God's law. Do women women are ordained ministers that lead, preach and counsel men go against God's moral law?
You talk of Christian and non-Christian countries and the oppression of women. Sounds like the stoning of a woman who doesn't cry out during rape, the whole non-virgin wedding night death penalty and men as superior to women are things we see in countries that have their roots in Islam and not Christian Bible teachings. Oh wait...
Here's a piece of scripture that we talked about at Sunday coffee on the death penalty as to WWJD.
John 8:1-11 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 bEarly in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and che sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now din the Law Moses commanded us eto stone such women. So what do you say?†6 This they said fto test him, gthat they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, h“Let him who is without sin among you ibe the first to throw a stone at her.†8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?†11 She said, “No one, Lord.†And Jesus said, j“Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on ksin no more.â€]]
To add to the discussion about different religions and their view on the Death Penalty, here's a handy chart.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut7.htm
These might be the blood lusters that Cory was talking about. Remember the gravity and somber reflection that was shown around the state sanctioned deaths of Rick Perry's Texas.
Republicans Cheer Texas Death Penalty at GOP Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocKFSLsZnUo
Pastor, your small circle would be a number within the unaccountable maze that makes up the Protestant denomination, that also teach as you do in regard to the death penalty. Hardly .8bil, when that number would just be a high guesstimate to begin with.
As to faithful attendance, Catholics are an easy target but having lived most of my 60 years as a Protestant, I did not need a masters in plumbing to spout those very words you speak, in my pre Catholic days of animosity to the RCC.
I thank God the Church and tradition has changed and I hope it continues to evolve as Christ expected of us as Christians.
I am comfortable in accepting other religions without contention or argument as long as they don't try to rule me with their religion.
Our laws that deal with the consequences of stopping a
beating heart should take precedence over any mans religion.
Winston, I teach in the country--Greece. The sentiments you shared which you gleaned from your brother about the difference between seminary trained and Bible college trained students is common. But here's the thing... don't hold that stereotype too tightly as I could introduce you to some people around the world who have no higher theological education and they are used of God mightily and have insights into scripture that are gleaned from hours everyday in the prayer closet.
More importantly, half of what you wrote is full of presumptions about what I am doing and not doing in public policy and doctrines of separation of church and state and tolerance and who is forcing dogma on who these days, etc. I don't even want to start in on that here tonight. Peace.
Jana, I have a chapter called "Releasing Women Everywhere" in my commentary of 1/2 Timothy and Titus and I think you'd be pleasantly surprised at how some of those tough Pauline texts relating to women are handled.
So much, so complicated—thank you readers, for numerous interesting thoughts. I proceed slowly through the list...
Pastor Hickey: if Robert has made his peace with the Lord, if he has said the magic words and done the sincere heart surgery that get him forgiveness and eternal life, does he pose a danger to us? Do we still need to kill him?
Yes he himself says he is still a danger to those around him. And no, asking God to forgive you doesn't exempt you from the consequences of your actions.
There have been a number of times when ive been with dying Christians in their very last moments, including my parents, when there was some measure of envy in that they are about to free and fully in the presence of God. A revelation of the reality of being with God makes this life look dim in comparison. Trusting what I've read about his Christian conversion, Eric Roberts will be just fine in less than an hour and he won't want to come back here. Such is the Christian Hope. I've been with nonChristians at death and there is a fear and no peace.
In his 15:34 comment, Rev. Hickey says that as we have moved from Theocracy to "earthly administrations," "...we don't abide by the punishments he called for in the days of the Theocracy." It sounds to me as if Rev. Hickey is opening the door for even the faithful to abandon Scriptural calls to execute murderers just as we reject executing adulterers, homosexuals, and bacon-eaters. Romans 13:4 refers to bearing the "sword" on the "wrongdoer." Not "murderer", but "wrongdoer." If that's the only New Testament justification for capital punishment that I'm reading here, it doesn't provide the threshold that allows Rev. Hickey to say we can still wield the sword against murderers but, thanks to our new non-theocratic government, we can stay the blade against the lesser wrongdoers.
Either capital punishment is an Old Testament recipe for justice made obsolete by Christ's love (see Romans 13:8 right after the sword stuff!), or Rev. Hickey's comment about not abiding OT/Theocracy-era punishments is watered-down Christianity for weak believers who can't stand stoning adulterers they way they ought... or I've missed something.
(By the way, Hickey got me to pick up a Bible and read tonight. Grrr! ;-) )
It's a shame that Christian peace can't soothe the savage blood.
Another thread arising in the comments here is the effort to entwine capital punishment and abortion. The exchange between Drew and Steve O'Brien at 14:30 reveals my thoughts. Abortion, contrary to what Drew asserts, is an individual choice, not a social question. One woman carries that fetus. No other being, individual or collective, shares her unique burden. She has the right to make a decision pertaining to the use of her body that none of us get to make for her.
On the other hand, the death penalty is very much a social choice. It is our choice about how we the body politic will punish criminals. Punishment should rehabilitate, defend, deter, and/or retribute. As this Catholic reading suggests, capital punishment may not be effective or necessary in achieving those ends.
(By the way, Romans 13:6–7 is the section that tells us to pay our taxes.)
Thanks Pastor Steve...and I am sorry if I improperly presumed that you were a dominionist that was looking to will/impose the beliefs of the NAR on public policy. I think I remember something about the 7 mountains...but I could certainly be wrong on that. If I am, I do apologize.
Is your book at Crossroads?
I don't get to Crossroads hardly ever so I don't know. They used to have it, it came out in 2004 and is still in print but we have them for sure at the church. Or, I'll email that chapter to Cory and he can forwRd it to you. I'm not sure how NAR or so-called Dominion theology is relevant to this post but I'll say anyone who have ever prayed "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" is a dominionist. I believe Christians are called to be salt and light and influence every sector of society - the leaven of the kingdom is to permeate their entire loaf (society).
Thanks Pastor. I'll check it out, sounds like it would be a good topic for discussion at our coffees.
I hate when people use the bible as a tool for argument, because from my view you can find and then twist passages in the bible to support darn near any argument you have.
As far as this issue, I'm generally opposed to the death penalty. It upsets me dearly when you hear of people who are sentenced to death and its not 100% that they were even guilty, or in Texas where they killed a guy with a sub 70 IQ. However in this case, where he was in prison, and killed a guard then my opinion becomes somewhat skewed so to say. If I was a guard at the prison I wouldn't want to work there after the incident. So because of that I'm not protesting this specific case.