E.J.'s Precinct: Discussing Politics, Faith and Equality With E.J. Dionne

Jesus and The Death Penalty

Forums » E.J.'s Precinct » Jesus and The Death Penalty

You must be logged in to contribute. Log in | Register

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >> Last

Forums » washingtonpost.com forums » E.J.'s Precinct » Jesus and The Death Penalty

Jesus and The Death Penalty

posted at 11/29/2007 1:14 AM EST

*Moderator*

EJ_Dionne

First post: 5/22/2007
Last post: 10/9/2009
Total posts: 358

I'll have more to say about Wednesday night's You Tube/CNN Republican debate on Wednesday night. But I was intrigued by a question from Tyler Overman of Memphis, Tennessee. "I have a quick question for those of you who would call yourselves Christian conservatives," he said. "The death penalty. What would Jesus do?" Mike Huckabee defended the death penalty, saying: "Some crimes are so heinous, so horrible, that the only response that we as a civilized nation have for a most uncivil action is not only to try to deter that person from ever committing that crime again, but also as a warning to others that some crimes truly are beyond any other capacity for us to fix." But on the Jesus question, he ducked -- cleverly. "Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office," Huckabee said. But I don't want you to duck. I'd love to hear your answers to Mr. Overman's question.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: Jesus and The Death Penalty

posted at 11/29/2007 6:43 AM EST

JBMSC

First post: 11/16/2007
Last post: 11/17/2009
Total posts: 2413

Replying to:

EJ, you are correct that he ducked the question, but then again, Gov Huckabee is correct. Jesus spoke to us as individuals, and how we are to strengthen our relationship with God. The compassion he spoke of that we should give to one another as we are all God's children (one thousand and seven hundred years before Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase that "all men are created equal"), can be viewed in the Christian tone of Sean Taylor's father in his words concerning the assailants of his son.

However, as a society, we have well established that we will separate our governance and laws from our individual faiths (though there is ample evidence that many of the "forefathers" wished to have God's blessing upon this new nation and the vast majority if not the entirety were of Christian faith). Therefore, by principle, it would seem that one's faith and religious beliefs should not interfere with how an elected official makes decisions for the betterment of society.

However, from a Christian standpoint, we will all be evaluated in the end for our relationship with God. Does how a person governs society come into play here, or who a person votes for? Maybe, but it is not for me to decide or judge. That is a question between each person and God. So in essence, this question really should have no pertinence in the Presidential debate and is simply a meaningless "gotcha" question.

Let's move on.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Well Said

posted at 11/29/2007 6:47 AM EST

seanomore1

First post: 10/7/2007
Last post: 3/28/2008
Total posts: 1070

I concur completely on every point, JBMSC.

The snarky answer to "The death penalty. What would Jesus do?" would be "Suffer it."

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: Well Said

posted at 11/29/2007 7:07 AM EST

JBMSC

First post: 11/16/2007
Last post: 11/17/2009
Total posts: 2413

Replying to:

I concur completely on every point, JBMSC.

The snarky answer to "The death penalty. What would Jesus do?" would be "Suffer it." Posted by seanomore1

I wish I had thought of that. It would have caused a lot less typing and spell checking.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: Well Said

posted at 11/29/2007 9:12 AM EST

NHThinker

First post: 10/7/2007
Last post: 9/7/2009
Total posts: 2762

Replying to:

I wish I had thought of that. It would have caused a lot less typing and spell checking. Posted by JBMSC

I enjoyed both your answer and seenomore1's.

I think most people would first point to the following words from Jesus...

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. "
“Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.” (John 8:2-11 KJV)

But I think this statement taken to the extreme would imply that Jesus did not believe that humans should not punish other humans for what they do as wrong. Indicating that only God should punish and humans should only try to plead with others to obey the Lord.
Under this case, you could only ask criminals to stop being crinimals, you could not pass judgements on their behaviors.

As far as I know, no local reporter asked any followon questions to Jesus, asking if this statement mean that the gates to all the prisons should be openned up: I find it hard to beleive that his answer would have been "yes" until you consider:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and don't turn away him who desires to borrow from you.

Matthew 5:38-42

That is the statement where Jesus and Ghanhdi seemed to agree on. But if Jesus were asked, what if an evil man wanted to kill me and teach my children to worship the Devil, and it was clearly a case of either him or me was going to be killed, should I let him kill me or should I kill him to protect my children?

The only story I recall from the Bible with Jesus taking a an assertive/judgemental stance is:

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, (Matthew 21:12)

I would then try to philosophize "what would Jesus do" about civil manners by pointing to words attributed to Jesus:

"Render unto Cesar the things that are Caesar; and to God, the things that are God’s" (Mark 12:17).

I think that speaks to the heart of Huckabee's answer. I intepret it as Jesus viewed a clear separation from for the tribute to God and tribute to civil government. I view it as Jesus did not believe government should be a theocracy.

In my view, civil government needs to protect its citizens and cannot survive with a "do not resist evil" mentality.
But effectively resisting criminals does not necessarily imply you have to kill them.
If you can protect and provide for your citizens without killing the criminals than is probably the best approach if you are a civil servant and you agree with the New Testament.
The retribution aspect of the death penalty is clearly something Jesus disagreed with. The deterrence aspect of the death penalty is associated with protecting your citizens (as a civil matter), is something that Jesus did not talk to.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

no, let's not "move on"

posted at 11/29/2007 9:18 AM EST

dgblues

First post: 8/20/2007
Last post: 8/20/2009
Total posts: 365

"So in essence, this question really should have no pertinence in the Presidential debate and is simply a meaningless "gotcha" question."

Just because the question exposes the hypocrisy of the so-called "religious" you try to dismiss it. But we know what's going on here.

Most of these Republicans are trying to "out-God" each other. Huckster wears his minister status on his sleeve. If they parade their religiosity about as a credential on which they seek votes, these questions are fair game.

That he ducked it, and that he signed death warrants, means simply that he's a "pro-life" hypocrite. That's all.

Voters should not "move on," they should keep that in mind as they mull their choices. Of course, most so called "pro-lifers" share Huckster's hypocrisy affliction.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Agree/Disagree

posted at 11/29/2007 9:22 AM EST

seanomore1

First post: 10/7/2007
Last post: 3/28/2008
Total posts: 1070

As my title suggests, I both agree and disagree. Here's why:

It's clear to me that Jesus was talking about an person's individual relationship with God. Period. End of message. He didn't address government at all (except for that "render unto Caesar" thing). This is the fundamental problem with "Christian" government. Jesus didn't talk about government. He didn't give any plan for a government, he didn't state any principles of governance. He talked about God, individuals, and how best to serve God. He never said a word about how people should be coerced or punished, or how a government should be set up.

In my opinion, people who talk about governing on "Christian principles" have totally missed Jesus' message, and are merely using Jesus to try to impose their agendas on others.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

I hope they have their Winter jackets on in Hell.

posted at 11/29/2007 9:45 AM EST

JBMSC

First post: 11/16/2007
Last post: 11/17/2009
Total posts: 2413

Replying to:

Seanomore1, you and I are seeing more eye-to-eye lately than I would have expected. What is happening?

You hit the nail on the head. And the problem here is that the political perspective of the "Religious Right" (be it caused by that community itself, or from those on the outside trying to deface it) is painting a picture of Christianity as a whole being evil and oppressive. As we try as a society to be more embracing of other religions, it has become posh to attack Christianity as a whole (the majority can defend itself, the minorities need protection).

Now, just so I feel like there is some normalcy in our exchanges, I will debate you by pointing out an old topic on a different thread. Your point about Jesus speaking to us personally about serving God, and not how we are to be coerced plays to the concept of charitable contributions versus societal taxing (can't remember the thread or the exact message exchange and don't have the desire/time to research, but I think I caught the jist of a past discussion. Feel free to correct me if my recollection is faulty).

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: no, let's not "move on"

posted at 11/29/2007 9:59 AM EST

JBMSC

First post: 11/16/2007
Last post: 11/17/2009
Total posts: 2413

Replying to:

The tone here leads me to infer that you think I am insincere. You may not agree, but I am sincere in my response. But I guess there is no way of knowing on your end, because if I am insincere, I should not be trusted. "Believe me, I am no liar".

Replying to:

Most of these Republicans are trying to "out-God" each other. Huckster wears his minister status on his sleeve. If they parade their religiosity about as a credential on which they seek votes, these questions are fair game.

That he ducked it, and that he signed death warrants, means simply that he's a "pro-life" hypocrite. That's all.

I really hate the label game. It over simplifies and puts in a bucket the complexity of any one person's reasoning, despite the fact that in this country we promote individual reasoning. Can someone not be "pro-life" on one topic and not on another? And what is the full gambit definition of "pro-life" that is sanctioned and by which all must be classified? If someone truly feels that a particular abortion procedure terminates the life of a "real child", and supports the death penalty in certain cases as a viable deterrent to society, are they really a hypocrite? I have trouble seeing that as they are two different topics.

Replying to:

Voters should not "move on," they should keep that in mind as they mull their choices. Of course, most so called "pro-lifers" share Huckster's hypocrisy affliction. Posted by dgblues

Here is where I agree with you. Living in a free society, we each individually when we go to the polls decide if something that someone said or did in the past makes them a viable candidate. Each person can view both my and your posts and decide for themselves if this is a relevant topic. So I should not have commanded to move on, but for me, this is a non-issue.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: I hope they have their Winter jackets on in Hell.

posted at 11/29/2007 10:07 AM EST

seanomore1

First post: 10/7/2007
Last post: 3/28/2008
Total posts: 1070

Replying to:

My position at the time was that IF people insist that religious prohibitions should be written into the law of the land, is it not logical that religious admonitions of charity and kindness should also be written into the law of the land?

I don't think religion should be in the law at all. Neither did Thomas Jefferson:

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: no, let's not "move on"

posted at 11/29/2007 10:09 AM EST

seanomore1

First post: 10/7/2007
Last post: 3/28/2008
Total posts: 1070

Replying to:

I think Mr. JBMSC and I share the position that the issue and the candidate are meaningless. If you feel the need to expend your time, effort, and bile on a no-hoper, knock yourself out.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

forgiveness, rehabilitation and life

posted at 11/29/2007 10:18 AM EST

lcaine

First post: 10/12/2007
Last post: 3/19/2008
Total posts: 6

Jesus said "let those with no sin throw the first stone". The defendent being guilty of adultery which the law and tradition prescribed death by stoning.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Deterrent? Hardly.

posted at 11/29/2007 10:32 AM EST

LarryBud

First post: 11/29/2007
Last post: 3/5/2008
Total posts: 4

I think Huckabee's duck and parse manuever is laughble. To say that the death penalty has been a deterrent to the most heinous crimes is even more ridiculous.

Furthermore, to suggest that there is any Christian justification for the death penalty is bordering on blasphemy.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: Deterrent? Hardly.

posted at 11/29/2007 10:36 AM EST

JBMSC

First post: 11/16/2007
Last post: 11/17/2009
Total posts: 2413

Replying to:

I am not sure anyone said there is a Christian justification for the death penalty (or are you refering to statements from Gov Huckabee).

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Jesus and the death penalty

posted at 11/29/2007 10:36 AM EST

dandb3

First post: 11/29/2007
Last post: 8/5/2009
Total posts: 13

Why don't we apply thedeath penalty to operators of Meth. labs and drug dealers? they are the ones who knowingly ruin the lives of others. I believe that if we did that, it would absolutely deter others from committing the same pre- meditated, blatant crimes and thus reduce drug usage.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: Jesus and The Death Penalty

posted at 11/29/2007 10:37 AM EST

jag02jlp

First post: 11/29/2007
Last post: 11/29/2007
Total posts: 2

EJ

As a Catholic that makes all attempts to adhere to Catholic teaching and the foundation of our faith, you can note that not one candidate on either side represents the millions of Catholics in this country. Not one. You cannot find one candidate that is anti-war, pro-life, and anti-death penalty. Jesus DID leave us the answer to this question: Of all the commandments, he told us to remember this above all: Love one another. He would NOT support the death penalty but would give every opportunity to that person to be saved and repent. The Church clearly spoke on this issue, that even the most awful prisoners can be safely removed from society and yet, treated as humans worthy of God's grace. This is a simple issue that politicians foul up at every turn with their self contradictory responses. The Truth is easy to decipher.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: Jesus and The Death Penalty

posted at 11/29/2007 10:47 AM EST

JBMSC

First post: 11/16/2007
Last post: 11/17/2009
Total posts: 2413

Replying to:

And as we self-evaluate, I believe you are correct. Sin is abundant amongst us. We are not above each other. We must confront our challenges individually. Jesus showed this in his dialog with the condemned thief on the cross. Go forth with your faith and trust in God, and all will be well. At the same time he offered a prayer for the condemner "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do".

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Crucifiction was the Death Penalty

posted at 11/29/2007 10:59 AM EST

noahglusenkamp

First post: 11/29/2007
Last post: 11/29/2007
Total posts: 1

Jesus did suffer the death penalty. He was crucified by the Roman empire's death penalty. Jesus, on the other hand, taught forgiveness, understanding, and love as principle virtues. The opposite principle, retribution, is why people desire the death penalty. But retribution is not only contrary to Jesus' principles, its application caused his death. Nor can we fall back on the faulty notion of"deterrence," when a person commits a crime they are often risking their own life already, worry about capital punishment is far less immediate. If we are to take Jesus seriously we will see that it was the application of the death penalty by a superpower whose citizens failed to see their critiques apply to themselves.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

What would Jesus do REALLY?

posted at 11/29/2007 11:19 AM EST

tskesq

First post: 11/29/2007
Last post: 11/29/2007
Total posts: 1

He would cast the demon out of the criminal and the reformed soul would go his way and sin no more.

We are a Christian nation in name but we are not and cannot be Christ-like, at least not as a sovereign state. Jesus was a pacifist who let himself be executed for wrongs others had committed. That is not our lot, and Huckabee's answer tacitly acknowledged it.

The only question we can usefully address is "What would Jesus tell us to do?" That seems to be what this thread is actually discussing anyway.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Romans 13 says it all

posted at 11/29/2007 11:33 AM EST

ron@5millers.us.fm

First post: 11/6/2007
Last post: 11/29/2007
Total posts: 2

I think Romans 13 is instructive for believers and non-believers as to the Christian worldview of government. Romans 13:1 says:

"Obey the government for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow. For the authorities do not frighten people who are doing right, but they frighten those who do wrong. So do what they say, and you will get along well. But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for you will be punished. The authorities are established by God for that very purpose, to punish those who do wrong. So you must obey the government for two reasons: to keep from being punished and to keep a clear conscience."

God gave government the responsibility for keeping order and administering justice. His expectations of Christians in their personal relationship with him are different and deeper, however, so I agree with those who see the distinction between personal and societal obligations.

As for the person who thinks it's hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-death penalty, I thought Governor Huckabee did a fine job addressing why he makes a distinction between them. Some of my devout Catholic friends are able to do the same, much to my surprise, but I don't condemn them because it's clear they've thought and prayed about the position they take. I don't have insight into their hearts, so I refrain from judging them as hypocritical.

Personally, I do not support the death penalty and I'm a pro-life Republican, but I thought Governor Huckabee's solemn and serious answer to how he administered the death penalty was noteworthy. Also, didn't Gov. Kaine of Virginia, a Democrat, also say that, despite being Virginia's first Catholic governor, he would uphold the death penalty because it is the law of his state? Would he be subjected to the same criticism? Rather than painting this issue in partisan terms, why can't we accept that there are people of conscience on both sides of this debate?

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >> Last

Forums » E.J.'s Precinct » Jesus and The Death Penalty

Jobs | Cars | Real Estate | Rentals | Classifieds

SEARCH:

Search Archives

The Washington Post Company: Information and Other Post Co. Websites

Help | Contact Us

washingtonpost.com

Groups